■■' HI ■ '■ 1 i'V 

■HHi 



SHni 

■■■ 



MKHClUfl 



*3> 



V, 



* 8 1 \ 



~ - "° '>, ''c- \\ 



v. .'"iaWa*" * ■ 



■A" x 



0o, 



y o » 



O 



r k c o H 



M • x V 



o v 



1 



a\ .in 



Life 



,0 e> 



> 



v > ^ v * o f , > 



v 



POLITICAL ' DISSENTER. 



An Advocate- of the Duty of Separation from all 
Immorally Constituted Social and 
Political Organizations. 



This paper is full of discussions of living questions con- 
cerning the Christian's relations to the family, business and 
other social organizations, and political society. 

It applies faithfully and fearlessly the Bible law — 
" Have no fellowship with the unfruitful w T orks of dark_ 
ness ;" " Come out from among them, and be ye separate 
saith the Lord." 

The Youths' and Home Department is specially rich, 
giving the Poetry of the Covenant, and stories of the days 
of persecution. This department alone is worth more than 
the price of the paper. 

A special feature will be the discussion of Scripture pas- 
sages bearing on the duty of separation from all organizations 
immoral in themselves, or immorally constituted. 

It is printed on the best quality of paper, and is one of 
the finest specimens of typography to be found anywhere. 

Twelve Quarto Pages twice a month. A marvel of cheap- 
ness — only 50 cts a year. 



Address 

POLITICAL DISSENTER, 

13 Union Avenue, Allegheny, Pa. 



Stenographic report 

OF 

The Great "Liberal" Tri 



COVENANTER SYNOD OF 1831. 

WITH AJV INTRODUCTION. 



ALLEGHENY, PA. 
COVENANTEE PUBLISHING COMPANY, 
13 UNION AVENUE. 
1892. 




?4- 

3/ 



PKEFACE. 

The type-written copy of this Report of the Trial in the 
Covenanter Synod of 1891, with the affidavit of the stenogra- 
pher as to the accuracy of his work, was secured by Mr. James 
R. McKee, of Pittsburgh, at heavy expense, as an historical 
document that would become each year of greater value. It 
was felt by many that the Report should be published, and 
arrangements were entered upon for this purpose; but no 
sufficient number of subscribers for the volume was obtained, 
after many months' effort, to warrant the necessary additional 
outlay. At length, however, as the time passed, and another 
meeting of Synod was drawing near, it was determined by a 
single individual that he would assume the responsibility of 
the publication of the Report, because of its important bearing 
on the welfare of the Covenanter church. The publication of 
this volume has been no small burden added to already heavi- 
ly accumulated responsibilities, but the work has been done as 
carefully as possible in the circumstances, and it is now sent 
forth in full confidence that the Lord will use it to his own 
honor and the best interests of his church and kingdom. 



INTRODUCTION. 

The Trial, of which this volume gives a full short-hand 
report, has an antecedent history. No such disturbance has 
ever yet broken out in any church without having had causes 
at work through many preceding years. The aim of this 
Introduction is to trace the causes that have led to this Trial 
in the Covenanter Synod. A careful examination and state- 
ment of this kind is all the more necessary because of the 
wide currency given by the newspapers to misleading views 
of the trouble. It could not be expected that men unfa- 
miliar with the history of the church, as newspaper report- 
ers so generally are, would understand the matter thorough- 
ly enough to be able to furnish a correct and comprehensive 
view of the questions at issue. Nor could it be expected 
that, with the view which they did take of the trouble, their 
reports would be free from partiality. It is believed that 
the account here given will correspond in some good degree, 
at least, with the calm and impartial judgment of history. 

THREE GREAT QUESTIONS. 

Three questions, which have always possessed absorbing 
interest among Covenanters, have been most intimately con- 
nected with this trouble. These are the organic unity of 
the church, missionary and evangelistic work, and pre- 
eminently the Kingship of Christ over the nations, or his 
political Messiahship, including the consequent position of 
dissent from the constitution of the United States. The 
covenant of 1871 gives expression to the deep interest of 
the entire Covenanter church on these three points. After 
that act of covenant renovation, the interest in these ques- 



8 INTRODUCTION. 

tions became still deeper and more absorbing. The cove- 
nant of 1871, in harmony with the preceding history of 
the church, j^laces side by side with its strong expressions as 
to missionary and evangelistic effort, and the duty of laboring 
and praying for the organic unity of the whole church of 
Christ, the further duty of the uncompromising mainte- 
nance of practical dissent from the immoral compact of the 
constitution of the United States in loyalty to Christ as the 
King of kings and Lord of lords. It is not surprising that 
in some instances, on the one hand, this latter duty has 
been regarded as the one and only mission of the Covenanter 
church, and that evangelistic and missionary work has been 
viewed as more properly the work of other churches. Nor, 
in the tendency of the human mind to swing too far either 
to one side or the other, is it to be wondered at that the duty 
of evangelistic effort and the principle of the organic unity 
of the church have been so pressed out of their relations to 
other parts of the church's covenant engagements as greatly 
to' weaken the sense of these in the minds of some of her mem- 
bers. It will go down into history, however, that the Cove- 
nanter church, by her official action, and with great una- 
nimity, has maintained with wisdom and steadfastness the 
safe middle ground between these extremes. Proof might 
be multiplied without limit of the wise and faithful mainte- 
nance of this position by the church. Nothing could be 
clearer than the covenant sworn and subscribed at the Pitts- 
burgh Synod of 1871. The third, fourth, and fifth sections 
of this covenant read as follows : 

3. Persuaded that God is the source of all legitimate power; 
that he has instituted civil government for His own glory and 
the good of man ; that he has appointed His Son, the Mediator, 
to headship over the nations ; and that the Bible is the supreme 
law and rule in national as in all other things, we will main- 



INTRODUCTION. 



9 



tain the responsibility of nations to God, the rightful dominion 
of Jesus Christ over the comdlon wealth, and the obligation of 
nations to legislate in conformity with the written Word. We 
take ourselves sacredly bound to regulate all our civil relations, 
attachments, professions and deportment, by our allegiance 
and loyalty to the Lord, our King, Lawgiver and Judge ; and 
by this, our oath, we are pledged to promote the interests of 
public -order and "justice, to support cheerfully whatever is for 
the good of the commonwealth in which we dwell, and to pur- 
sue this object in all things not forbidden by the law of God, 
or inconsistent with public dissent from an unscriptural and 
immoral civil power. 

We will pray and labor for the peace and welfare of our 
country, and for its reformation by a constitutional recognition 
of God as the source of all power, of Jesus Christ as the Euler 
of Nations, of the Holy Scriptures as the supreme rule, and of 
the true Christian religion ; and we will continue to refuse to 
incorporate, by any act, with the political body, until this 
blessed reformation has been secured. 

4. That, believing the church to be one, and that all the saints 
have communion with God and with one another in the same 
covenant ; believing, moreover, that schism and sectarianism 
are sinful in themselves, and inimical to true religion, and 
trusting that divisions shall cease, and the people of God be- 
come one catholic church over all the earth, we will pray and 
labor for the visible oneness of the church of God in our own 
land and throughout the world, on the basis of truth and of 
Scriptural order. Considering it a principal duty of our pro- 
fession to cultivate a holy brotherhood, we will strive to main- 
tain Christian friendship with pious men of every name, and 
to feel and act as one with all in every land who pursue this 
grand end. And, as a means of securing this great result, we 
will, by dissemination and application of the principles of truth 
herein professed, and by cultivating and exercising Christian 
charity, labor to remove stumbling blocks, and to gather into 
one the scattered and divided friends of truth and righteous- 
ness. 

5. Rejoicing that the enthroned Mediator is not only King in 
Zion, but King over all the earth, and recognizing the obli- 



10 



INTKODUCTIO^T. 



gation of His command to go into all the world and preach 
the gospel to every creature, and to teach all nations, baptizing 
them in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy 
Ghost, and resting with faith in the promise of His perpetual 
presence as the pledge of success, we hereby dedicate ourselves 
to the great work of making known God's light and salvation 
among the nations, and to this end will labor that the church 
may be provided with an earnest, self-denying and able min- 
istry. Profoundly conscious of past remissness and neglect, 
we will henceforth, by our prayers, pecuniary contributions 
and personal exertions, seek the revival of pure and undenled 
religion, the conversion of Jews and Gentiles to Christ, that 
all men may be blessed in Him, and that all nations may call 
Him blessed. 

THE MISSIONARY WORK OF NATIONAL REFORM . 

We should not fail to note the twofold aspect of mission- 
ary work, as set forth in the closing words of the fifth section, 
which quotes the inspired and inspiring words of that grand- 
est of missionary odes, the seventy-second Psalm. This two- 
fold mission work includes the evangelization of nations, as 
well as of individuals. And it is safe to say that no other 
church in the United States has labored with such generous 
contributions and such untiring zeal for the bringing of the 
nation, as such, to Christ. 

In 1867 was begun the publication of the Christian States- 
man in the support of which Covenanters all over the country 
gave most freely of their means. And for nearly twenty- 
five years this public witness for the Kingship of the Media- 
tor has been scattered over the United States by the con- 
tributions of the Covenanter church. The money furnished 
by this little church, with an average membership during 
that period of much less than 10,000 communicants, for the 
support of this single arm of national evangelistic or mission- 
ary work, would sum up scores of thousand of dollars ; and 
the years of labor given by members of this little body, in 



ESTTKODUCTION. 



11 



this work unpaid except by the consciousness of promoting 
the King's honor, would amount, at ordinary rates of com- 
pensation, to scores of thousand of dollars more. 

The same year of the renewing of her covenants, the 
church appointed an agent to give his whole time to the 
work of National Reform. She had contributed freely of 
her means to that work before ; but from 1871 on, she has 
paid the principal part of the support of from one to five 
laborers in that arduous and noble cause. Counting the 
cost of tracts, volumes of proceedings and addresses, the 
holding of great national and smaller local conventions, and 
leaving out all moneys derived from other sources, the 
Covenanter church has given an average of over $6,000 a 
year for twenty-five years in this special work of National 
Reform. In one year her contributions to this cause, in 
cash actually paid out, exclusive of all that came from other 
sources, were over $10,000. And who can estimate the 
money value of the work done by her ministers and her 
members, men and women, young and old, who have given 
themselves with the zeal and enthusiasm of crusaders to 
this cause during all these years, counting it the greatest 
honor of their life to labor, often amid the scorn and re- 
proaches of the world, for the crown and sceptre of the 
King of kings ? 

Leaving out of the estimate all except the money actually 
expended, .the total amount given by the Covenanters, in all 
the departments of the work, in this sustained effort of a 
quarter of a century to bring our beloved country into ac- 
knowledged subjection to Christ and into the enjoyment of 
the blessedness of the nation whose God is the Lord, may 
be safely placed at $250,000 — an average of $10,000 a year, 
or considerably over one dollar each year for each communi- 
cant. 



12 



HSTTKODUCTION. 



While some within the church have more or less openly 
opposed this work, and others have become so enthusiastic 
in it as to desire to have the strength of the church almost 
entirely given to it, the church herself has held steadfastly 
on her way in maintaining side by side with this mission 
to the nation, vigorous evangelistic and missionary work, in 
the ordinary sense, both at home and abroad. Mission work 
in Syria and Asia Minor, and abounding labors among the 
Freedmen in the South, the Chinese on the Pacific coast and 
in our great cities, of late years also among the Indians, and 
evangelistic efforts in mission Sabbath School work, have 
marked this period of Covenanter history in America. 

MISSION WORK AND POLITICAL DISSENT. 

In all these evangelistic and missionary labors the Cove- 
nanter church has maintained her distinctive principle of 
Christ's Kingship and the consequent duty of political dis- 
sent. As a church she has seen no reason, in the most 
earnest efforts she could make to carry into effect the obli- 
gations of the fifth section of her covenant, to turn her back 
in any measure upon the obligations of the third section. 
The most devoted laborers in the cause of National Reform 
have been for that very reason all the more unwavering 
in the maintenance of political dissent from the immoral 
compact of the constitution which they were striving so 
earnestly to bring into harmony with the law of Christ. 
Foreign missionaries, home missionaries, and pastors, have 
been earnest in seeking to win souls to Christ from among 
all classes of men, and to bring the Fellahin, the Freedmen, 
Chinamen, and all other ranks and conditions both abroad 
and in our towns and cities, into the membership of the 
visible church of Christ. A measure of intelligence has 
been required, but those needing further instructions have 



INTRODUCTION. 13 

not been excluded. The strictest maintenance, in teaching 
and by discipline, of the great principles of the church has 
been no barrier to the winning of sinners out of the dark- 
ness and disobedience of the kingdom of Satan. 

ATTEMPTS TO TURN EVANGELISTIC WORK AGAINST DISSENT. 

For a number of years preceding the Trial, however, the 
extension and pressing of evangelistic work were made the 
plea for the disregard of the covenant obligation of political 
dissent. The argument was sometimes the sweeping one 
that the church had no right to require any condition of 
membership whatever, except a profession of faith in Christ. 

It was contended that whenever the Covenanter or any 
other gospel worker wins a convert, so that he will say, " I 
believe in Jesus Christ as my Saviour,'' the church must 
receive him into her communion. And then when it was 
manifest that the logic of this sweeping argument would 
break down all discipline, and leave the courts of the church 
powerless in numberless cases of violation of her law and 
order by any who still professed to be true believers in 
Christ, it was maintained that practical dissent from the 
United States constitution had never been the constitutional 
law of the Reformed Presbyterian church, and that it was 
only an explanation by which her members could not be 
lawfully bound. 

Thus the sound and well-balanced position of our cove- 
nant on evangelistic and missionary work was abandoned 
for another which set the different sections of that covenant 
in most direct and fatal antagonism to each other. The in- 
terpretation of the church's law which would forbid the re- 
quirement of political dissent on the part of anv brought in 
by evangelistic effort must be the interpretation also, it was 
soon acknowledged, for all other members. When this logic 



14 IXTKODUCTIOX. 

began to be felt, there was at first a disposition to make 
church officers an exception. Members generally, it was 
argued, should not be held to the duty of separation from 
the immoral compact, while that separation might be fit- 
tingly required of deacons and elders and ministers. But 
the broad ground Avas soon squarely taken, viz., that while 
the exercise of the elective franchise under our immoral con- 
stitution of government is a sin, and political dissent there- 
fore a Christian's duty, nevertheless this avoidance of sin 
and performance of duty must be left to the conscience of 
the individual members of the church. With such an 
assault from within upon the historic and covenant position 
and practice of the church, the Trial reported in this volume 
was inevitable. 

THE ORGANIC UNITY OF THE CHUKCH. 

The Covenanter church has also held most strenuously 
to the organic unity of the one body of which Christ is the 
Head, and this in perfect harmony with her testimony to 
Christ's Kingship over the nation, and the duty of political 
dissent. The fourth section of her covenant is just as fully 
in accord with the third section as with the fifth. Indeed, 
the one principle which binds all these sections of the cove- 
nant in closest unity is the Kingship of Christ. Nations 
and the church are moral agents under the suj)reme law of 
their King. A clear conception of the church of Christ, as 
a moral person, or an organism in its true covenant relation 
■ with its Head, will help to solve the difficulties often felt in 
connection with this subject. 

The standards of the Reformed Presbyterian Church af- 
firm most emphatically that the whole church of Christ is 
one, and that this one body should acknowledge its relation 
to its King and Head by engaging in solemn covenant to 



INTRODUCTION. 



15 



do all that he has commanded. This covenant relation, in 
which the moral person lays hold upon covenant promises, 
and takes itself most sacredly bound, unitedly and mutual- 
ly, by covenant obligations to attend faithfully to every duty 
pertaining to its own relations to its Head, as determined by 
His supreme law, is the necessary condition of true organic 
church unity. Any attempt to effect the union of the frag- 
ments of the visible church apart from such recognition of 
covenant relations and obligations must prove futile. It 
cannot be unity in the truth, by the truth, and for the truth, 
and hence not unity in the Lord and for his honor, if it be 
attempted without such fundamental acknowledgment of 
covenant relations and obligations. 

Such covenanting does not require perfect unanimity on 
all grave and important questions. But it gives an avowed 
authoritative and supreme standard to which appeal may 
be made on all matters of difference. There is no agree- 
ment to ignore or bury truth. On the other hand, there is 
most solemn covenant engagement faithfully and fearlessly 
to maintain and apply all known truth. Thus the Cove- 
nanter church, in her attempt at covering all known dutv 
in every sphere of moral action, as she has sincerely done 
in her covenant, though of course not infallibly or perfect- 
ly, takes the only basis on which the organic unity of the 
church can ever be realized. In her present separate eccle- 
siastical organization, she covenants to keep aloof from all 
sin, and in all relations to be true to Christ as King. The 
position of political dissent maintained by her members is 
simply the practical application of her comprehensive cove- 
nant engagement. She cannot renounce this application of 
Christ's law as a condition oi effecting a union with some 
other part or parts of the visible chnrch. In any and every 
attempt at healing the breach of the daughter of Zion it 



16 



IXTKODUCTIOX. 



must be maintained that the very position which the Cove- 
nanter church holds to-day is the position to which the one 
visible body, with her organic unity manifested to the world, 
should be pledged by her covenant. And there must be 
nothing by compromise of the truth, or by agreeing to keep 
silence for the sake of peace, that will prove a barrier to 
the fullest possible attainments of the one organically united 
and covenanted body. 

THE "LIBERAL" PLAN OF CHURCH UNION. 

The " liberal" tendency in the Covenanter church has 
shown its true character in no way more clearly than in 
its Avide departure from the church's well denned position on 
this question of the organic unity of the body of Christ. 
The conditions and requirements of evangelistic work being 
such, according to this " liberal" view, that no difference in 
admitting converts would be found between Covenanters 
and other bodies of Christian's, why should these bodies, it 
would naturally be asked, remain apart ? When it is claimed 
that, on evidence of the conversion of any persons to Christ, 
Covenanter church courts are under obligation to admit 
such converts to church privileges without regard to the 
rules that have distinguished Covenanters from other Chris- 
tian churches, why should there continue to be any separa- 
tion between these branches of the church ? 

This assault begins upon the distinctive principles of the 
Covenanter church. But where does it end ? It says, first, 
as the ministers whose trial is reported in this volume and 
their supporters repeatedly said : " You have no right to 
require the practice of political dissent, either of old or newly 
admitted members. That must not be made a term of 
communion." This distinctive point of difference being- 
done away with, the Covenanter church would thus become 



INTRODUCTION. 



17 



ene with the United Presbyterian church, and any other 
bodies that hold essentially the same principles. The first 
step being taken, and organic union being' effected, the next 
step must logically be to insist that this united body shall 
abandon its practical adherence by discipline to the testi- 
mony and standards which require the use of inspired 
psalmody and separation from secret orders. So this body 
becomes one with the churcnes that differ from it mainly by 
not requiring the exclusive use of the Scripture Psalms, and 
by not forbidding membership in secret societies. And 
thus this so-called " unifying" process would go on, with a 
sacrifice of principle at every step, until just enough would 
remain of Scriptural truth to warrant the great united body 
to hold to the name of the church of Christ, instead of being 
a synagogue of Sat an. This " liberal" plea for organic unity 
would manifest at least some measure of consistency and 
sincerity if it would follow out its logic to such a conclusion 

ATTEMPTS AT UNION WITH THE UNITED PRESBYTERIAN 
CHURCH. 

This ie unifying" operation sought to take on some- 
what definite shape in the year 1887, when the Covenanter 
Synod appointed a committee to confer with a similar 
committee already appointed by the General Assembly of 
the United Presbyterian church, in regard to the unit- 
ing of these two ecclesiastical bodies. The United Pres- 
byterian General Assembly had no thought of acceding 
to the position of the Covenanter church. But members 
of the Assembly had knowledge of the tendencies in the 
Covenanter body to which attention has already been 
called, and hence they appointed their own committee 
and requested the appointment of a similar committee by 
the Covenanter Synod, in the hope that the latter body 
was ready to accede to the position of the former by no 



IS 



DsTEODUCTIOX. 



longer requiring the maintenance of political dissent. 
The report of the committee of the Covenanter church 
to the Synod of .1888 gives the history of this effort in 
detail, and we can do nothing better than transfer the 
official documents to these pages : 

REPORT OF SYNOD'S COMMITTEE OX UNION. 

Your committee appointed at the request of tlie General 
Assembly of the United Presbyterian church, to meet with a 
similar committee appointed by them. " to confer in regard to 
the subject of union of these two churches, *' respectfully re- 
port: 

By correspondence a meeting of the joint committees of the 
two churches was arranged. We convened in the Fourth IT, 
P. church, Allegheny. Thursday, December 29th, 1887, at 10 
o'clock, A. M. There were present at the meeting Eev. James 
Harper, D. D., Eev Alex. Young, D. D.. Eev. J. W. Wither- 
spoon, D. D., Eev D. W. Carson. D. D.. and Eev. W. J. Eeid, 

D, D., of the United Presbyterian committee, and Eev. D. 
McAllister, D. D., and Eevs. J. W. Sproull, J. C. McFeeters y 
J. E. Wylie, and E. J. George, of theEeformed Presbyterian 
committee. Eev. F. M. Foster was not present at the conference 
and does not fully accord with the first item in the deliverance 
of the conference. 

Two sessions of the conference were held, at the first of which 
Dr. Harper presided, and Dr. McAllister at the second; Eev. 

E. J. George was secretary at botb. 

As to the object of the conference, it was agreed that it was 
not for the discussion of distinctive principles ; but for a com- 
parison of views, to determine how far we are in harmony. 
It very soon became evident that our sister church had been 
led to seek the conference under an impression that we were 
prepared to modify our practice so far as to make our position 
of political dissent and separation from the government of the 
United States a matter of personal judgment and conscience, 
and not a subject of church discipline. They stated that this 
impression had been conveyed to them by articles in some of 
our magazines, and personal interviews with some of our min- 
isters. Your committee felt warranted to state most emphat- 



INTRODUCTION. 



19 



ically that no such sentiments had ever been uttered on the 
floor of our Synod ; that no thought of that kind had been in 
the mind of Synod in appointing the committee, and that our 
Synod had no knowledge whatsoever that such an impression 
in their mind had led them to seek the conference. This point 
being settled we entered upon a comparison of views. 

It was agreed that both the churches are sincere in their 
adherence to the Westminster standards, the confession of 
faith, and the catechisms. The question as to the bearing of 
the standards on any practices of either church was not dis- 
cussed. The conference then passed to a consideration of the 
doctrines and practices of the two churches on the subject of 
civil government, and their attitude toward the government 
of these United States. On this subject the differences seem- 
ed to be irreconcilable, and for the purpose of formulating a 
clear statement of the position of each church, a committee,, 
consisting of Dr. McAllister and Dr. Carson, was appointed to 
prepare a paper as a basis of action. This paper was carefully 
drawn up and submitted at the afternoon session. On the con- 
sideration of this paper there was a very free interchange of 
views as to our distinctive principles. This report was adopt- 
ed unanimously, and is herewith transmitted to Synod as em- 
bodying the results of the conference. 

The proceedings throughout were characterized by a spirit 
of kindness and courtesy among brethren, and at the same 
time the utmost frankness was used in stating and, when 
necessary, defending distinctive views. 

The last resolution was added after the adoption of the paper 
prepared by the committee, and gives the impression of the 
members of the conference as to the ends gained by the meet- 
ing. 

In closing the report we would say that it is the judgment of 
your committee that Synod should take action on the subject 
of church union, declaring her willingness to co-operate with 
all sister denominations in an effort to restore the lost unity 
of the body of Christ; that this end is not to be sought by 
giving up or holding in abeyance any part of that truth which 
is conscientiously believed, but by a reverent search after the 
whole truth as it is in Jesus,, in the spirit of love ; and that it 
is the duty of our church to hold fast her profession without 



20 



INTRODUCTION. 



wavering, that when the opportunity arises for the conference 
of all the churches she may fulfil her mission in the advocacy 
and defence of those important principles which she alone 
holds in their practical application. 

STATEMENT ADOPTED BY THE JOINT COMMITTEE. 

The committees appointed hy the General Assembly of the 
United Presbyterian church and the Synod of the Reformed 
Presbyterian church, after a full and frank conference, have 
agreed upon the following statement : 

I. That the churches which they represent, as they most 
firmly believe, harmonize in the maintenance of the doctrine 
embodied in the testimony of each church that our Lord Jesus 
Christ, as Mediator, is vested with authority over all creatures, 
and that his revealed will is supreme and ultimate law for na- 
tions, as well as for the church and individuals ; and that it is 
the duty of nations to acknowledge their relation of subjection 
to the Prince of the kings of the earth and his authoritative 
law. 

II. The committees recognize the fact that the churches 
which they respectively represent are not in harmony in the 
.application of the above doctrine of Christ's dominion over 
the state. The United Presbyterian church, on the one hand, 
leaves it with the individual conscience to decide whether the 
nation does or does not so far comply with the requirements 
of the Word of God as to permit the follower of Christ con- 
sistently to take part in the administration of the government, 
under the compact of the written constitution of the United 
States. On the other hand, the Reformed Presbyterian church 
regards this written constitution as an agreement from which 
all appeal to the authority of Christ and his law in national 
affairs has been excluded ; and as an agreement to administer 
the government without an appeal to the law of Christ as be- 
ing over the constitution and the nation itself, and on this 
ground requires her members not to become parties by any act 
to what she believes to be an immoral compact. Holding, as 
these churches do, to these diverging views in the practical 
application of accepted truth, it is the judgment of the com- 
mittees that the way to organic union is not yet open. 

III. Holding to the same great principles of truth, and differ- 



INTKODUCTION. 



21 



ing only in their application, the joint committees express the 
hope that the closer brotherly co-operation in the Master's 
work at large, and the more earnest and united labors of the 
two churches for the ascendency of the principles of Christian 
government, will at length remove what at present seems to 
be the great barrier in the way of organic union. 

IV. That while we have not been able to formulate a basis 
of agreement, to be submitted to our respective churches, we 
are assured that this fraternal conference has been mutually 
helpful, and that it will tend towards ultimate union, by dis- 
covering to us more clearly how fully we are in accord in 
great fundamental principles, and the precise point at which 
we diverge in the application of these principles. 

THE COVENANTER SYNOD'S POSITION ONCE MORE AFFIRMED. 

The articles referred to in the preceding Report were 
articles in Our Banner, one of the church magazines, 
which advocated the making of the historic position of 
political dissent a matter to be decided by the individual 
conscience. Following the joint conference of the union 
committees in December, 1887. the Banner more boldly 
pressed its new views as to political dissent. Accordingly, 
when the Synod of 18*8 was considering the whole sub- 
ject of union, the following resolution was offered and 
would have been carried by an overwhelming majority, 
had not the editor of the Banner disavowed the inter- 
pretation put upon his articles in the resolution : 

Whereas, One of the church pamphlets in its discussion 
on church union advocates union by our making the matter of 
voting under the constitution a matter of forbearance ; there-; 
fore, 

Resolved, That this Synod condemns the teaching and pub- 
lication to the people of these views as inconsistent with our 
Testimony and Covenant. 

As a further expression of Synod's convictions on this 
ubject of church union the following resolutions were 
dopted at this meeting in 18." 8 : 



22 



EsTTKODUCTIOX. 



Besolved, 1. That this Synod approves the course of its 
Committee, commends their wisdom and faithfulness, and 
affirms the conclusions which they reached. 

Besolved, 2. That we solemnly reaffirm our conviction that 
the constitution of the United States is a virtual agreement or 
compact to administer the government without reference to 
Christ or the Christian religion, and that incorporation with 
the government on the basis of this constitution is, therefore, 
an act of disloyalty to Christ. With this conviction in o^r 
hearts, we cannot do otherwise than maintain to the end the 
discipline we have maintained in the past; and we believe 
that the highest interests of our country, and of the kingdom 
of Christ, are involved in our fidelity at this point. 

Besolved, 3. That this Synod emphatically repudiates any 
interpretation of any previous deliverances or decisions as 
looking toward, or intended to lead, to the abandonment of 
our historic position ; and Sessions and Presbyteries are here- 
by distinctly enjoined and directed to maintain, consist- 
ently and faithfully, the discipline of the church, requiring of 
her members a practical dissent from the government of the 
United States, as at present constituted, and furthermore, that 
Presbyteries be directed to make diligent inquiry as to whether 
or not any known violations of the law and order of the church 
with reference to this matter are tolerated in any congregations 
in their respective bounds, and if so, to see that the law is en- 
forced, and to report to this Synod. 

Besolved, 4. Believing in the language of our covenant that 
u schism and sectarianism are sinful in themselves," we earn- 
estly pray for the restoration of the lost unity of the visible 
body of Christ, and we hold ourselves ready, at any time, to 
enter into a council of believers, submitting all our differences 
to the decision of the Word a'nd Spirit of God; but partial 
unions on the basis of compromise, for the purpose simply of 
forming a larger sect, involve for us the abandonment of our 
testimony, and unfaithfulness in the special work which our 
Lord, as we believe, has called us to do. 

ATTEMPTS AT UNION WITH THE NEW SCHOOL REFORMED 
PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH. 

But the most extraordinary feature of this movement in 



INTKODUCTION. 



23 



the Covenanter church, while avowed to be in the interests 
of the organic unity of the visible body of Christ, has been 
the persistent effort to effect a union between the old Cove- 
nanter church and that portion of it which broke off in 1833, 
and which from that day till now, nearly sixty years, has 
maintained a separate ecclesiastical existence without a single 
justifying ground of separation from at least one other body 
of Christian people. 
• Immediately following the ineffectual attempt just re- 
corded to bring the United Presbyterian and Covenanter 
churches into organic unity, was a similar effort originat- 
ing in the General Synod of the Reformed Presbyterian 
church. A committee was appointed by the Covenanter 
Synod to meet with a similar committee appointed 
by the New School Reformed Presbyterian Synod. The 
committees met in November, 1888, and after full confer- 
ence agreed upon the following statement of the points 
of agreement and the one radical point of difference be- 
tween them : 

Mesolved, That both the churches represented agree en- 
tirely in all the doctrines of grace and salvation, in all the 
practices of worship, and in all the principles of their respec- 
tive professions ; and that they differ only in one point, viz : 
the practical application of the principle of Christ's rulership 
over the nations — the General Synod allowing her members to 
incorporate by voting with the present existing government, 
and the Synod refusing her members this privilege while the 
nation refuses to own Christ. 

As a testimony to the willingness of the Covenanter 
church to take any step possible in the direction of true 
organic unity, rather than with the hope of accomplish- 
ing anything by further conference, a committee was ap- 
pointed to meet once more with a similar committee of 
the General Synod. The report of this conference, sub- 
mitted to both Synods in 1890, is as follows : 



24 



INTRODUCTION. 



REPORT OF THE UNION CONFERENCE. 

The committees on union of the Synod and General Synod 
of the Keformed Presbyterian churches met in the Eighth 
street Reformed Presbyterian church, Pittsburgh, January 31, 
1890, at 3 P. M. 

Prof. W. P. Johnston, chairman of Synod's committee, called 
the meeting to order. Dr. J. F. Morton, of Cedarville, Ohio, 
opened the meeting with prayer. Rev. J. W. Sproull, D. D., 
was chosen chairman, and Rev. John Alford, secretary. 

The committee from the Synod were: Ministers: W. P. 
Johnston. W. J. Coleman, H.H. George, D. D., J. W. Sproull, 
D. D., David McAllister, D. D., and A. Kilpatrick. Ruling 
elders: A. B. Copeland, W. S. McAnlis and J. C. Calderwood, 
the last being absent. The committee from General Synod 
were: Ministers: J. F. Morton, D. D., John Graham, S. M, 
Ramsey, J. H. Kendall, and John Alford. Ruling elders : 
James W. Houston, Robert Abbott, James Patterson, Ephraim 
Young and Thomas Gibson. Absent : Ephraim Young and. 
Thomas Gibson. A short season was spent in devotional ex- 
ercises under the direction of the chairman. The object of 
the meeting was stated by Prof. Johnston and Rev. John Gra- 
ham. 

The following ministers of the United Presbyterian church 
were present and invited to seats as consultative members: 
Drs. D. W. Collins, J. N. Dick and R. J. Miller, Revs. J. S. 
Speer, D. M. Thorn, D. S. Littell and J. A. Kennedy, and 
Joseph McNaugher, ruling elder. 

After some suggestions as to the manner of conducting the 
conference, the following paper from the committee of General 
Synod was read by Dr. Morton : . 

Deeply conscious of the importance of the re- union of the 
two branches of the Reformed Presbyterian church, and re- 
garding it as our bounden duty as the followers of Christ to re- 
move, as far as possible, every barrier that stands in the way 
of its consummation, we respectfully submit the following 
propositions as a basis for the action of the joint committee : 

General Synod accepts in full the Declaratoiy Testimony 
which is to-day acknowledged by the Synod as their constitu- 



INTRODUCTION. 



25 



tional law, to which applicants for admission to the church 
are required to give their assent. 

General Synod accepts in full the Terms of Communion a& 
they were held in common before the division of 1833. 

General Synod accepts the covenant of 1871 with the under- 
standing that the phrase, " incorporate with the political body,' r 
means such incorporation as involves sinful compliance with 
its religious defects. 

General Synod accepts the principle of dissent from an im- 
moral constitution as a Christian duty, believes that the con- 
stitution of the United States is defective in failing to own God 
and Christ and his law, and will labor to secure the Christian 
amendment proposed by the National Reform Association. 

General Synod accepts the position of the Testimony, pages 
7, 8, that " the particular application of the principles of the 
Testimony .... should not be incorporated with the : 
confession of the church's faith," and that "Terms of Com- 
munion should embrace nothing but what is divine truth." — 
Testimony, XXII : 4. 

General Synod agrees that the names of the members of 
either court in 1833 and their successors shall be enrolled upon 
the records of the opposite court and they two become one. 

The paper was read and taken up item by item. The first 
and second items were read and adopted. The third item was 
read and discussed at length. Pending the discussion the con- 
ference took a recess until 7.30 P. M., Dr. Collins concluding 
by prayer. 

Same place, 7.30 P. M., conference re-assembled, was called 
to order by the chairman and opened with prayer by Rev. S... 
M. Ramsey. The minutes of the afternoon meeting were read 
and approved. The following paper from Synod's committee 
was read by Dr. McAllister : 

The committee appointed by the Synod of the Reformed 
Presbyterian church agree to the basis of union submitted by 
the committee of the General Synod, provided the third item 
be amended to read as follows : The General Synod accepts 
the covenant of 1871 with the understanding that the phrase,, 
"incorporate With the political body," means such incorpora- 
tion as involves sinful compliance with the religious defects of. 



~2(J 



INTRODUCTION. 



the written constitution, which incorporation would be the ac- 
ceptance of said constitution, as it now stands, as a compact of 
government by the members of the Reformed Presbyterian 
church, either in holding an office in which an oath is required 
to the constitution as such a compact, or by voting for men to 
administer the government on the basis of this compact. 

A lengthy and animated discussion followed. As a dis- 
posal of the whole matter Rev. J. Alford offered the following : 
"Although, as is evident, we cannot agree on the third item 
proposed by the committee of General Synod, so as to recom- 
mend its adoption, as part of a basis of union, still we are willing 
that it, and the balance of the paper of which it is a part, to- 
gether with the proposal from Synod's committee read by Dr. 
McAllister, shall come before our respective Synods at their 
approaching meetings, for their consideration." This was 
unanimously adopted. 

ACTION OF THE COVENANTEE, SYNOD. 

When Synod met, the committee submitted a report 
approving of what had been done in conference, and 
pledging that there would be <( no surrender of the testi- 
mony of the Reformed Presbyterian church, and no de- 
parture from a practice by which that testimony is made 
effective." This report called forth the most extraor- 
dinary discussion ever heard in the Covenanter Synod. 
Speech after speech was delivered in opposition to the 
church's covenant engagements to maintain the honor 
■of King Jesus and the supremacy of his law by requiring 
dissent from the written constitution of our government. 
After listening with the utmost patience and forbearance 
for days together to ministers and elders making im- 
passioned pleas against the principles of their own pro- 
fession, the vote was taken upon the report, and it was 
adopted. The "liberal" opposition then embodied its 
views on the question of union in the following reasons of 
dissent : 



INTRODUCTION. 



27 



"liberal" dissent and reasons therefor. 

We, the undersigned, beg leave to record our dissent and 
protest against the adoption of the report of the Union Com- 
mittee, which refuses to accept the basis of union proposed by 
our brethren of the General Synod, for the following reasons : 

I. Because the divine constitution of the church, the claims 
of the unevangelized masses in all lands, and the unrelenting 
warfare waged by personal and corporate foes of God and man 
against morality and religion, now imperatively demand that 
all the friends of Christ shall join in the closest unity that is 
attainable without the sacrifice of any divine truth. 

II. Because this basis accepts in their integrity our sub- 
ordinate standards, which we have claimed were our Testimony 
in behalf " of all divine truth and against all contrary evils." 

III. Because the solemn league and covenant, sections 1 and 
6, binds us to maintain church unity on the basis of the West- 
minster standards, which the proposed basis fully accepts. 

IV. Because our covenant of 1871, sections 2 and 4, owns 
Our subordinate standards as the "scriptural system of faith, 
order and worship," and by oath binds us to pray and labor 
for church union on this platform, which the proposed basis 
fully accepts; it is not therefore a surrender of any of our 
principles. 

. V. Because our acceptance of the proposed basis would open 
the way for a speedy union of the psalm-singing churches on 
a platform that includes all the principles of divine truth, and 
all the practices of scriptural order and worship ; and this, by 
its influence and power, with the divine blessing, would soon 
secure the glorious church unity for which Christ and his 
people pray. 

VI. We specially protest against the approval or adoption of 
the committee's addition to the basis of union, which pledges 
not to vote nor hold office under the United States constitution, 
as a farther condition of membership in our church. 

1. Because, although our sessions, have long required such 
a condition of membership, yet it was never incorporated in our 
standards, must be overtured and adopted before it can be a law- 
ful term of co mmunion, and is contrary to the principles of 
our Testimony, pp. 7, 8, 116, and Ch. XXI. 3 and XXII. 4. 



28 



INTRODUCTION. 



2. Because it makes our " explanation of the terms" a term 
of communion binding the conscience, which we have always 
disclaimed. 

3. Because it is a mere opinion that only proficient students 
of the Bible and of political philosophy can understand, and 
thus excludes Christ's little ones from church privileges con- 
trary to his express will. Matt. 15: 9 and 16: 18 and 19: 13- 
18; Rom. 14: 1-5; and Rev. 3 : 7, 8. 

4. Because it dishonors us and our covenanted fathers as 
having entirely omitted from our Testimony, that which is now. 
claimed to have been all along our chief term of communion,, 
whose omission, the committee in their statement say, " would 
leave the united church without any justifiable ground of a 
separate denominational existence." 

To complete this remarkable record, we add the answers 
adopted by Synod to the reasons of dissent : 

ANSWERS TO REASONS OF DISSENT. 

1 . That the decision of Synod does not in the judgment of your 
committee, conflict with any of the interests which in the first 
reason are said to demand imperatively the union of the two 
bodies on the basis proposed ; on the other hand the union as 
proposed would have been injurious to every one of those 
great interests, and especially would have been a sacrifice and 
surrender of truth to the hindrance of the accomplishment of 
the organic unity of the whole church of Christ. It would 
have been the strengthening of schism and sectarianism in the 
heart^rof the daughters of Zion. 

2. Synod reached its decision in the clear conviction that the 
basis of union as interpreted by those who proposed it, and as 
exemplified in their history, most seriously impaired the in- 
tegrity of our subordinate standards. 

3 and 4. The old covenants, the Westminster standards, our 
declaratory testimony and the covenant of 1871, are to be taken 
as a whole, and as a progressive, authoritative interpretation 
of God's Word, suited from age to age to the circumstances of 
the church. These subordinate standards favor the organic 
unity of the whole church on the basis which Christ himself 
proposes. Synod declares itself ready to co-operate in the , 



INTRODUCTION. 



29 



•consummation of the organic union of the entire Christian 
church on this basis. The decision against which the reasons 
of dissent are entered is understood by Synod to be in perfect 
harmony with the uncompromising opposition of our testimony 
and covenant to the sin of schism and sectarianism, and their 
earnest advocacy of the oneness of the church of Christ. 

5. The union of all the psalm-singing churches on the basis 
proposed would be but the making of a larger denomination 
on the sectarian principle, even if it were successfully accom- 
plished. The attempt at such a union, however, would no 
doubt practically make more division than it would heal. In 
either case it would hinder the consummation of the organic 
unity of the whole visible body of the Redeemer. 

6. The amendment proposed by Synod's committee to the ba- 
sis submitted by the General Synod simply reaffirmed the his- 
torical position of the Reformed Presbyterian church in its 
essential principles. The church has not been dead. She has 
modified statements, and adapted her action to the necessities 
of the times. Her deliverances and the conduct of her mem- 
bers may have been in some cases inconsistent, as is true of all 
other churches; but the testimony has been and is that of 
practical political dissent from an immoral constitution of civil 
government. This position Synod declares its earnest deter- 
mination, by the grace of God, to maintain until the laws and 
authority of Christ are acknowledged ill our nation's funda- 
mental law. 

In reference to the other three reasons, summing up a reply 
in one item, Synod declares its belief that the question of union 
with the General Synod has been brought before us fairly and 
squarely again and again, and that it would be difficult to con- 
ceive of a more full and explicit declaration than committees 
and members of that Synod have repeatedly given of their 
proposed basis of union; and still further, that the question as 
to union with the General Synod on the basis which they pro- 
posed has been settled to the general satisfaction of Synod. 
It may be added that whatever unrest is still felt in our church 
is mainly not from any longing for a union with the General 
Synod on its proposed basis, but for the fulfillment of the 
Saviour's intercessory prayer, and the realization of what by 



30 



I^TKODUCTIO^. 



our testimony and covenant we are pledged to pray and labor 
for, the organic unity of the entire church of Christ. 

For all the foregoing reports, resolutions, etc., the reader 
who wishes to examine the official records is referred to the 
Minutes of Synod for 1888, 1889, and 1890, as published 
in the Reformed Presbyterian and Covenanter and in Our 
Banner for the respective years. 

It would seem that this particular effort at church union 
by trying to heal the breach of 1833 could have had but little 
heart in it, inasmuch as those who were so eager to carry 
the whole Covenanter church to the position of the New 
School brethren, did not themselves go into that communion 
when they left the old body, but united with other portions 
of the visible church. But the earnest and persistent efforts 
made to carry away the old Covenanter church from her 
historic position of requiring the separation of her members 
from the immoral compact of the government, and to land 
her in the bosom of that body " that was, and is not and 
yet is" the Covenanter church, — Covenanter in name, but 
with nothing to distinguish it from other churches that never 
claimed the name, — are one of the most striking proofs in 
all ecclesiastical history of the possibility of the rankest 
sectarianism and schism airing itself in the garb of devotion 
to the unity of the church. 

SUMMARY OF POINTS OF THIS REVIEW AS TO UNION. 

It may be well to sum up the main points on the subject 
of uniou which this review has brought out, and which bear 
upon the Trial reported in this volume. 

1. Both the United Presbyterian church and the New 
School Reformed Presbyterian church agree with the old 
Covenanter church on the doctrine of Christ's Kingship. 



rSTKODUOTION. 



31 



They accept the same principle, as a principle, and embody 
it in their testimony. 

2. The Covenanter church differs from both these other 
bodies in requiring the separation of her members from the 
political society under the bond of the compact of the written 
constitution, which agrees to make the will of the people, 
without reference to the law of Christ, supreme in national 
affairs. In other words, the Covenanter church applies the 
principle of Christ's Kingship over the nations in such a 
practical way as to forbid any of her members to enter into 
any political relations which, in her judgment, dishonor the 
crown and sceptre of the King of kings and Lord of lords. 
Over and over again, in committees, and conferences, 
and in Synod, it was maintained that the church is called 
upon to make the duty of dissent and separation from a 
Christless political society obligatory upon her members. 
Just as the honor of Christ and the authority of his law are 
to be maintained in other matters by the discipline of church 
courts, so this matter of political dissent may not be left to 
the individual conscience. 

3. All this is in harmony with the testimony and cove- 
nant on the great question of the organic unity of the church. 
The committees of Synod and Synod itself have repeatedly 
declared the readiness of the. Covenanter church to enter a 
council of believers with a view to the restoration of the lost 
unity of the visible body of Christ ; but all partial unions, 
forming only a larger sect, and all unions on the basis of 
compromise, or at the expense of truth which it is expressly 
or tacitly agreed to ignore or put aside, for the sake of so- 
called union, the Covenanter church most emphatically con- 
demns. 

4. It is remarkable that the strenuous efforts at union 
which have just been recorded were not to bring into one 



32 



INTRODUCTION. 



the United Presbyterian church and New School Reformed 
Presbyterian church. Both of these churches, as was re- 
peatedly maintained by their representatives, agree with the 
Covenanter church in all the great principles of her testi- 
mony, including the Kingship of Christ. The one great 
point of difference in both cases is the application by the 
Covenanter church of the truth that Christ is King of nations. 
Why, then, should not the United Presbyterian and the 
New School Reformed Presbyterian churches be one ? 
Should not burning zeal for the organic unity of the church 
-expend itself here ? Should not determined opposition to 
.sectarianism and schism make itself felt in a manifestly un- 
justifiable breach of the unity of the body of Christ such as 
this ? 

5. The zeal for the unity of the church, as the record 
shows, was zeal to have the Covenanter church abandon 
her historic and covenant position. The question of her 
uniting with one church or another church was evidently a 
matter of indifference. 

6. Still further, this same zeal for the unity of the church 
was the cause of the disturbance of the peace and rupture of 
the unity of the Covenanter church. The history briefly 
traced from the year 1887 to 1890 shows a continued 
agitation, proved in the end to be far beyond what was 
known generally at the time, with a view to carry the old 
Covenanter body off its historic and Scriptural foundation, 
or else to rend it asunder in the effort. 

7. Seldom have forbearance and long-suffering been called 
into more active exercise than in the Covenanter church 
during these continued assaults upon her distinctive prin- 
ciples by men who had sworn to maintain them. When 
seventeen ministers and elders penned their names to a pa- 

er charging that the sessions of the church had all along 



INTRODUCTION. 33 

been violating the Scriptures and the Testimony by requiring 
political dissent as a condition of membership, thus exalting 
a mere explanation of a term of communion into a term it- 
self, the wonder is that Synod did not instantly suspend them 
from the exercise of their office. It seems in the light of 
subsequent events that Synod's forbearance was rather a 
neglect of duty, and that long-suffering toward officers who 
were assailing the life of the church was failure to defend 
with necessary vigor and promptness the life that was being 
assailed. 

THE EAST END MEETING AND PLATFORM. 

This brings our review down to the East End Meeting, 
the story of which is fully told in the report which follows. 
This Meeting, with its formulated Platform, was held with- 
in the bounds of the Pittsburgh Presbytery. The Presbytery 
was convinced that the tendencies and teachings which have 
just been traced in their operation for a number of years, 
had now come to a head, and that a divisive course had as- 
sumed most positive and active character. Something must 
therefore be done. What should it be ? 

The logic of the principles of the East End Platform, 
would, in the name of church union, not only destroy the 
Covenanter church, but other churches as well. Distinctive 
principles of other bodies would be demolished by this Plat- 
form quite as effectually as the principle of dissent. Thus 
the holding of such a meeting, and the formulation and 
dissemination of the principles of such a platform, would 
have been a divisive course in churches that do not require 
the separation of their members from the Christless compact 
of our written constitution of government. Hence the Pitts- 
burgh Presbytery might have proceeded against the minis- 
ters within her bounds, who were responsible for the East 
End Meeting and Platform, on a number of counts and 



34 



INTRODUCTION. 



specifications, in some of which she would have taken com- 
mon ground with other ecclesiatical bodies. But to make 
the whole case as definite as possible, and to avoid a wide 
and possibly distracting range of discussion, the trial was 
confined to the one principle of political dissent, against 
which the whole " liberal" movement had specially directed 
its assault, and which more than anything else distinguishes 
the Covenanter church from other churches. 

It is hardly necessary to say that the Pittsburgh Presby- 
tery was exceedingly anxious to avoid a trial. It was but 
natural for this court to be eager to retain, if at all possible, 
the large number of her ministers who had taken part in 
the East End Meeting. If the integrity of the church could 
only be preserved, and if the course that had proved to be 
divisive could only be arrested, the manifest disposition of 
the Presbytery was to go to the very utmost limit of con- 
ciliation and prevent recourse to a trial. Such conciliatory 
settlement of the trouble, after repeated efforts, and with a 
kindly disposition to yield every possible point for the sake 
of peace, proved impracticable. 

PITTSBURGH PRESBYTERY DEFENDS THE INTEGRITY AND 
LIFE OF THE CHURCH. 

As matters progressed, it became clear to the Pittsburgh 
Presbytery that the men whose convictions had changed so 
that they were no longer in harmony with the Covenanter 
church, were determined to carry forward within the church 
the same lines of effort that had led up to the East End 
Meeting and Platform. As was frankly acknowledged in 
the course of the Trial reported in this volume, (see page 276,) 
the determination was to revolutionize the church. The 
right of church members to attempt the most radical changes, 
even in the constitutional law of the church, by proposing 
the desired changes in overture, was never denied. But the 



INTRODUCTION. 



35 



course that had now come to a crisis was no such orderly 
procedure. It was a determined effort to effect fundamen- 
tal changes, in opposition to Synod's authority, by meetings 
and discussions which in their very nature were disorderly 
and divisive. Having been led to this conviction, the 
Presbytery was constrained, though reluctantly and pain- 
fully, to institute proceedings. It could not do otherwise. 
The disorderly and divisive course was in its judgment in 
progress ; the men who were responsible would not give to 
Presbytery any satisfactory assurance that such a course 
would cease, nor would they quietly withdraw from the 
church with which they were no longer in harmony. What, 
then, could Presbytery do but defend the integrity and life 
of the church from these continued and more and more 
open and determined attacks ? Necessity was laid upon 
the court to go forward and arrest the injury being done 
to the church, which could not now be arrested in any 
other way than by the institution of proceedings against 
the disturbers of the church's peace. Nothing but deep 
convictions of right, and the sense of official accounta- 
bility to the Head of the church for the welfare of the 
congregations under their care, could have induced the 
ministers and elders of the Pittsburgh Presbytery to go 
forward in this most painful duty. And the verdict of 
Synod, in sustaining so heartily, the action of Pittsburgh 
Presbytery, will itself be sustained^ it is firmly believed, 
by the deliberate judgment of generations yet to come, 
and by the sentence of the great day of final accounts. 

PKELIMINAKIES IN SYNOD. 

Synod met on Wednesday, May 27, in the Eighth Street 
church, Pittsburgh, just twenty years after the act of 
covenanting in the same place in 1 1. The Rev. R 0. 
Wylie was chosen moderator, Dr. E. J. George, clerk, 



36 INTRODUCTION. 

and Dr. 0. D. Trumbull, assistant clerk. The full roll 
of Synod compromised one hundred ministers, and ninety- 
one elders. The decorations which had graced the con- 
gregation's Quarter-Centennial celebration of about two 
weeks before, were still left in place as appropriate to the 
meeting of Synod, with a possible special commemoration 
in view of the twentieth anniversary of the covenant reno- 
vation of 1871. These decorations were the inscription, 
in a curved line above, back of the pulpit, "For Christ's 
Crown and Covenant/' with {i The Sabbath," " National 
Reform/' " Temperance/' and " Missions," arranged be- 
neath the arch, together with the date 1871 n the spec- 
tator's left, and the date 1&91 on the right. Across the 
foit were the words, Be thou faithful unto death," the 
continuation of which Scripture ran across the front of the 
gallery, " And I will give thee a crown of life." On the 
platform, at the moderator's right, was a beautiful silk 
blue banner, with the motto in gold, " For Christ's Crown 
and Covenant," and at the left was an easel with a fine 
crayon portrait of Dr. A. M. Milligan, the former pastor. 
All these surroundings, with their associations and mem- 
ories, helped to impress the solemnity of covenant obliga- 
tions upon the Synod as it went forward with the trial. 

On Friday, May 29, the appeals and complaints of the 
ministers who had been tried and suspended from their 
office by the Pittsburgh Presbytery were presented and 
referred to the Committee of Discipline. From this date 
until Tuesday, June 2, various matters pertaining to the 
trial were before the court, including the motion to give 
the appellants and complainants opportunity to purge 
themselves of contempt of the authority of the Presbytery 
in continuing to exercise the functions of the ministry 
after being suspended from office. After their statements- 
had been made, Synod resolved that, "'having heard the 



ESTKODUOTION. 



37 



statements of the accused, we now proceed with the trial." 

A large number of the appeals and complaints were 
then read, and Eev. A. W. McOlurkin was heard in sup- 
port of his complaint, which, waiving the strict order of 
the Book of Discipline limiting him to a hearing on his 
declinature, it" was agreed he should have liberty to urge 
in his address before the court. As no stenographer had 
yet been employed, Mr. McOlurkin's speech is not includ- 
ed in this Report, which begins with the addresses of the 
following morning, Wednesday, June 3. 



Before closing this Introduction one matter requires 
notice as no unimportant factor in this remarkable Trial. 
This volume will be appealed to for the facts in the case 
by future generations ; and so pertinent a fact as the one 
in question, not likely to be put on record anywhere else, 
ought in the interest of the truth of impartial history > 
to find its place in this record. 

All through the proceedings in this case by the Pitts- 
burgh Presbytery, the ministers who were at length sus- 
pended for pursuing a divisive course, were treated as 
earnest and devoted Christian gentlemen. In no instance 
was it charged that their intention was to create disorder 
or divide the church. They were regarded as sincere in 
seeking what they believed to be the highest interests of 
the church, while yet it was Presbytery's judgment that 
their course was both a mistake and an injury. Their 
arguments, even when they assailed the principles of 
their, own profession were heard with courtesy. When 
they attempted to justify themselves by quoting certain 
extreme utterances of individual Covenanters, indus- 
triously gathered from the literature of many generations, 
or by charges against Synod of inconsistency in its de- 
liverances, or by new and oftentimes startling interpreta- 



38 INTRODUCTION. 

tions of the standards of the church, they were credited 
with all sincerity and earnestness, and with brotherly re- 
gard and respect for the authority of the courts of the 
Lord's house. 

Not until months after the trial in Presbytery did the 
state of mind of a number of ministers in question become 
somewhat widely known. But then a flood of light was 
let in upon ''the true inwardness" of their thoughts 
and feelings in reference to the members of the Pres- 
bytery, who, according to their view, constituted an 
authoritative commission of the court. This revelation 
came through a letter written by one of the ministers 
who met with the Judicial Committee. 

No one who has anything like full knowledge of the 
facts in the case needs any proof beyond the letter itself 
of the genuineness of the epistle. It was written the 
day after the Judicial Committee met, and soon after 
being received by the one to whom it was written, it was 
given to a friend to be copied on a type-writer in a busi- 
ness office, and not long after this other copies were made, 
and thus the letter by the act of its recipient and friends 
passed from under the seal of privacy and became widely 
known. No on e is to blame but themselves for the break- 
ing of that seal. 

When Synod met this letter was read in part as having 
direct bearing on the case. This stirred up a perfect tem- 
pest of indignation against the man who had read the ex- 
tracts, and against others who, it was said, had been guilty 
of the outrage of making public a private letter. But the 
men and journals that were boiling over with righteous 
wrath against these offenders had no word of condemnation 
for the writer of the letter. The letter itself is now put up- 
on record in full, except that the names of the writer and 
the recipient are omitted. 



INTRODUCTION. 



39 



"liberal" letter. 
Dear : — 

This letter shall at least be addressed to you, 
even though there may be nothing in it to you especially. 
We have gained the most complete Victory ! ! ! over that 
gang that you could possibly imagine. 

The Judiciary met at 10 o'clock yesterday morning in 
Sproull's church,— J. W. Sproull, Mod., K. J. George, Clerk. 
The other members were McAllister, Willson, Copeland, D. 
O. Brown, and John Magee. This is not the Magee of Oil City, 
but I think he belongs at Middletown or Slippery Kock. 

We boys were summoned to meet them at 2 o'clock in the 
afternoon. From the spirit manifested in Presbytery, and 
from the fact that our explanations there had not been accept- 
ed, and because they seemed determined to force the most 
stringent measures upon us at Presbytery, we looked for a 
pretty tough time in the Judiciary. 

I prepared the statement you sent me ; but the boys were 
strong in the consciousness of having done no wrong, and 
their judgment was to the effect that we make no further ex- 
planations, and to positively refuse to sign any paper. Mr. 
Copeland opened the meeting with prayer, and then J. W. 
made a little speech. It was evident to all that he was extreme- 
ly nervous. He spoke in a very kind, mild way, assuring us 
of the love they all had for us, and of their firm conviction 
that our meeting at East End and the Platform there subscrib- 
ed had been misunderstood, etc., etc. They had therefore 
prepared a very short paper, which he was confident all would 
at once sign, and then the case would be dropped, and the 
Judiciary would prepare their report, which would be of such 
a character as to entirely restore the confidence of the church 
in us, etc., etc. We had him read the paper over several times, 
which in substance was as follows : 1st. We disavow the East 
End Platform as a bond of union within the Reformed Pres- 
byterian church, and hold it simply as an explanation of in- 
dividual opinion. 2nd. We agree to conform to the law of 
the church in regard to the use of the ballot at civil elections 
and holding office under the U. S. government, and will en- 
force the above requirement while we remain ministers in the 
R. P. church. 3rd. We will not propagate views contrary to 



40 



INTKODUCTION. 



the above requirement. This was about all as near as 1 can 
remember it. The Judiciary had agreed among themselves 
to let the moderator do all the talking, and it was evidently 
his policy not to make or require any explanation of the paper, 
but to let every one explain it to suit himself. We, however, 
began to ask questions and to make objections of one kind 
and another, until we got the entire Judiciary talking. 

They assured us there was no trap in the paper, and nothing 
to be read between the lines. They would stand between us 
and any false and extreme interpretation that might be put 
upon it. Temple told them that there were prominent men 
in his congregation who had been voting and holding office 
for years, and he wanted to know if signing that paper would 
require him to go home and bring those men to time. The 
Judiciary said that would be an exceptional case; they real- 
ized the difficulties of it, etc., and he would not be bound to 
exercise discipline in those cases by signing their paper. 
We made them say that the promise not to propagate did not 
prevent our explaining our views in private to individuals, 
nor bringing the matter up in a regular way at Synod. In 
fact we had everything explained our own way. Then they 
said: "Now with that understanding you can all approve of 
the paper." We said, "Yes." Then they wanted us to sign 
it, and we refused. It was certainly laughable to see Sproull 
going around with the pen. He fairly begged me to please 
come and head the list. He put the chair up to the table a 
dozen times for us, and coaxed us individually and collectively 
to sign. We however stood on our dignity. I told them we 
had done nothing worthy of bonds and imprisonment, yet in 
slanderous newspaper articles they had suspicioned our char- 
acter, and publicly charged us with terrible crime; that the 
Presbytery had refused to accept the statements we made in 
open court, and had appointed this Judiciary and empowered 
them to draw up libels against us in case we could not come 
to a settlement. If we signed that paper, it would imply that 
we had done something wrong and were now pledged to toe 
the line. We, however, did not propose to admit even that 
much. We had done nothing contrary to the law and order 
of the church, and preferred that they should go ahead with 
their libels and either convict or acquit us as publicy as they 



INTRODUCTION. 



41 



had changed crimes against us. We pitched into the Elders 7 
Convention, and the ministers who were behind it, and the 
ministers who had denounced us and the Platform from their 
own and in other pulpits. We claimed it was nothing we had 
done, but their misinterpretations and their unbrotherly con- 
duct that had caused all the disturbance in the church, and 
that in all justice they were the ones who should be libeled 
for pursuing a divisive course. We sat around there for two 
hours refusing to sign their paper, inviting them to libel us, 
and condemning their course. We kept our tempers, and spoke 
and acted like Christian gentleman through it all, and this 
made our words the more keen. At one time Dr. McA. said : 
"You all know what my idea of church union is." Brown 
replied : "I know it, Dr., and it is because I accept your idea 
that I find myself in all this trouble." We assailed Willson 
for bringing in those libels. He said : " Gents, if I had heard 
your speeches, I would never have put them on the table." 
Some one told him that his haste was in very bad taste ; that 
if he had waited he could have put the libels under the table, 
where they belonged. When they found that we would not 
sign their paper, then they prepared a minute to the effect 
that on examination it was found that we had been misunder- 
stood, and that as we all approved of the statements made in 
their paper, the case was dropped. Then they marched around 
the room and gave us the right hand of fellowship, expressing 
their joy that confidence was again restored between brethren. 
This performance was not the least ludicrous part of the pro- 
ceedings, as you may well imagine. We boys can hardly be- 
lieve that we are not dreaming; and the people seem to be de- 
lighted. One man told me that he saw we boys had got into 
the king row before we left Presbytery, and he knew it was 
only a question of how long it would take us to corner them. 
Harry Temple is the only man not satisfied. He admits that 
we gained a decided victory, far greater than he had any hopes 
of our securing. He roared at the way we pranced around the 
Judiciary, and the manner in which the D. D.'s and L.L. 
D. got down on their knees to a lot of boys, and begged them 
to sign their paper ; but he says we were like Meade at Gettys- 
burgh — we got the enemy on the run, and then failed to follow 
up our advantage. He thinks we should have demanded an 



42 



INTKODUCTIO^. 



apology from the Presbytery. But unless I quit this cannot 
go off to-day. So with love to all, I remain. 



A letter like the foregoing speaks for itself. It tells its 
own story. Its spirit is under no cover of restraint. No 
reader, however unfamiliar with the facts of the case, can 
misunderstand its unreserved and unintended revelation. 
A few points, however, need to be brought out, for the sake 
of some readers, in connection with this extraordinary doc- 
ument : 

1. It was written by one of the ministers who met with 
the Judicial Committee, just after these ministers had come 
together to rejoice over what they regarded as the humiliat- 
ing defeat of that Committee, and their own signal victory. 
Let the reader compare such statements in this letter as 
these — " We have gained the most complete Victory ! ! ! over 
that gang ;" " he roared at the way we pranced around the 
Judiciary," etc. ; " one man told me that he saw we boys 
had got into the king-row," etc., with the reference to the an- 
nouncement of "Victory for the liberals," found in the Trial 
on pages 175, 184, and 398. He will then clearly under- 
stand what might otherwise seem obscure as to the origin 
of the newspaper reports. 

2. This gathering of these " liberal" ministers for such 
uproarious triumph just following the meeting of the Judi- 
cial Committee is in marked contrast with the meeting of that 
Committee, when in its private conference that morning 
every one of its seven members offered earnest prayer in 
turn, mentioning most affectionately the young men who were 
to meet with them in the afternoon. 

3. The references in the letter to Dr. J. W. Sproull, chair- 
man of the Judicial Committee, will be compared with the 
references to the same person as found in the Report of the 



IXTKODUCTIOX. 43 

Tiial on pages 65 and 311. The value of the latter will 
be justly appreciated after such a comparsion. 

4. Such a reference in the letter as that to the alleged 
willingness of the Judicial Committee to have one of the 
ministers go home and permit a prominent member to con- 
tinue to vote and hold office, as he had been doing for 
years, needs only to be put side by side with the basis of agree- 
ment itself, in order to see the self-evident contradiction. 
First, there is an agreement to carry out the law of the 
church, in the matter of civil elections, and then the Com- 
mittee are represented as agreeing that there may continue 
to be the violation of this law. It required a peculiar state 
of mental unsettlement to put together such self-contradic- 
tory terms. In like manner the implications in the refer- 
ences to Prof. Willson's admission as to bringing in the 
forms of libel, and Dr. McAllister's views on the organic 
unity of the church, partake of the same character of special 
pleading. 

5. This letter is a revelation of the state of mind not only 
of the writer, but of all the ministers who met to celebrate 
the victory, and of those who afterward helped to circulate 
the letter over the country. And this spirit of triumphant 
ridicule and contempt, it will be borne in mind, was for 
what was believed to be a Judicial Commission of the Pres- 
bytery ; that is, not a committee, but an authoritative court 
of the Lord's house. To all such courts the vows of mem- 
bers of the church, and especially the ordination vows of 
ministers, pledge due respect and obedience in the Lord. 
When the kind, patient, and generous efforts of brethren 
and members of the Presbytery, even if not regarded as a 
commission, excited such ill-timed merriment and such con- 
tempt, it is easy to understand what the state of mind of 
these ministers must have been afterward, and during 1 the 



44 INTKODUCTION. 

whole course of the Trial. The spirit of the letter harmo- 
nizes with later manifestations. 

6. The saddest point of all suggested by the letter is the 
fact that the irreverent, disrespectful, and contemptuous 
frame of mind of the company of young ministers who met 
with the Judicial Committee was known to older, if not 
wiser men. These older officers in the church were there- 
fore responsible for the insubordination and contempt of 
authority revealed in the letter, so far as they gave their 
positive encouragement, or rather so far as they failed to 
administer needed counsel and reproof. 



Stenographic Rep 



STENOGRAPHER'S AFFIDAVIT. 



State of Pennsylvania,^ 

} SS 

County of Allegheny. J 

Before me, the undersigned au- 
thority, personally appeared J. H. Beal, who being duly sworn 
according to law, desposes and says, that on the 3rd, 4th, 5th, 
6th, 8th, 9th, and 10th days of June, 1891, he was present at the 
trial of H. W. Reed and other Ministers before the Synod of 
the Reformed Presbyterian church at Pittsburgh, Pa., and did 
take in shorthand a true, full and accurate report of all said 
proceedings; and that thereafter he did faithfully and ac- 
curately transcribe said shorthand notes in type-writing, and 
that the type-written copy of said proceedings to which this 
is attached is a true, full and accurate report of the proceed- 
ings at said trial, to the best of his knowledge and belief. 

J. H. Beal. 

Sworn to and subscribed before me ^| 
this 14th day of November, 1891. J 
William Beal, Notary Public. 



STENOGRAPHIC REPORT 

OF THE 

Trial of the Complaints and Appeals 

—OF— 

H. W. REED, A. W. McCLURKIN, W. L. C. SAMSON, O. B. 
MILLIGAN, E. M. MDLLIGAN, and J. R. J. MILLIGAN , 

BEFORE THE 

SYNOD § REFORMED PRESBVTERIAN CHURCH OF NORTH AMERICA, 

AT PITTSBURGH, PA. 



[The opening address of A. W. McClurkin, made on the 
evening of June 2, was not reported.— Reporter.] 

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 3, 1891. 

The Court being duly constituted the Moderator announced 
that Rev. H. W. Reed would speak in prosecution of his Ap- 
peal and Complaint. 

Rev. H. W. REED : Mr, Moderator, Fathers and Brethren : 
Before entering upon my defence proper. I wish to speak to 
a question of personal privilege, and that is in order to 
disabuse your minds of certain wrongs that may be done to 
me or done to others. It has been asserted in this court that 
certain older men are our leaders. Now, I wish you to 
understand that I am following no man's leadership, but that 
I am simply following, so far as I am able, the teachings of 
our subordinate standards and of the Holy Scriptures. And 
I wish to be acquitted or condemned, not for what others 
have said, or what others have inferred, but simply for what 
I myself have said and what I myself hold. 

Then, to begin, with regard to the rule of interpretation in 
regard to our utterances. Ruskin gives this rule for the inter- 
pretation of writings : u Be sure that you go to an author to 
get at his meaning, not to confound yourself ; be sure also if 
the author is worth anything, that you will not get at his 
meaning all at once.'* Now one great trouble with all this 
discussion and with all these trials is that they have taken us 
up not on our meanings, or our utterances, but on meanings 
that they have put to those utterances. Some parties reading 



50 



STENOGRAPHIC REPORT. 



our East End Platform the first time thought it was very bad; 
the second time they read it it was not quite so bad ; the third 
t'me they read it they could find nothing wrong with it. 
Now we ask this rule to be applied and carefully studied as to 
what these words meant to us, not what they might suggest 
to you. 

With regard to the Minutes of the Pittsburgh Presbytery 
my brother who was before you last evening called your 
attention to the incorrectness of the record. I wish simply to 
add my testimony to what he has said. The records of the 
Pittsburgh Presbytery, are in some places incorrect and in 
some places riot complete. There were actions taken in the 
Pittsburgh Presbytery that are not found whatever in the 
records, that were essential to us in the presentation of our 
case. 

It may be said that we might have called attention to these 
things at the time. To some of these attention was called 
and we were unable by any means within our power to have 
the record corrected. Besides, the Minutes of the 14th and 
15th of October and succeeding days were not read for 
correcting on the 4th of November, the 9th of December or 
the 13th of January ; they were only read at the April meeting 
for correction and adoption and we only discovered after we 
had gone to the Minutes for our extracts that, certain things 
had been omitted ; and some of us were not present at the 
April meeting to have these corrections made. And yet the 
clerk of the Pittsburg Presbytery was told of these things and 
he was requested to have these matters brought to the 
attention of the Court. So the records are not complete. 

You will notice that the first reason of my protest and 
appeal has to do with the East End Meeting and with the East 
End Platform. And you will notice by referring to the de- 
fence or action the Pittsburgh Presbytery has published by 
their own man that the first act with which the Presbytery 
begins in the investigation of the case, is the holding of the 
East End Platform to be our crime. 

Now we wish you to understand that the Pittsburgh Pres- 
bytery never for a moment took into account the state of 
affairs anterior to the East End Meeting. They never for a 
moment considered what was said concerning our action 
against adopting the report at the last Synod. They never 
for a moment considered that we were slandered and that 
our organization was misrepresented and that we were urged 
to leave the church, the church of our fathers. Here was a 
state of things, Fathers and Brethren, that never was brought 
to the attention of Presbytery; We tried to refer to them but 
we were unable by reason of pur inexperience, it may be ; by 
reason of youth, it may be. We were unable to get these 
.anterior facts before the Presbytery and these facts ought to 
have been there. 



WEDNESDAY. JUNE 3. 



51 



The East End Meeting and the East End Platform is held 
to he our crime ; it was held to he an attack on the life of the 
church ; it was claimed that we endeavored to destroy the 
Covenanter Church. 4 man is arraigned for murder. The 
. fact of the killing of another man is admitted. But must 
there not be an investigation of anterior facts with reference 
to the killing of that man before you can determine what his 
crime is '? Supposing the East End Meeting was a crime; sup- 
posing the East End Platform was an attack on the life of 
the church, were there not provocations, were there not 
temptations, were there not difficulties with which we had 
to contend that would largely take away the heinousness of 
that crime and give unto us at least some show for what we 
did ? 

We were misrepresented before the East End Meeting was 
held. We were called ''covenant breakers;" we were called 
"heretics;" we were called '"new-lights." It was said to us 
again and again by others of the church, "If you believe so 
and so you ought to leave the church." There were some who 
refused to pay the salaries which they had bound themselves 
to pay, to contribute to those schemes of the church by which 
we support men that voted against the adoption of the report 
for union. Here was the state of affairs, dear Fathers 
and Brethren, that was in our very faces; wherever we went 
we were looked upon with suspicion, we were received with 
distrust and we were not welcomed with brotherly love and 
kindness. 

Ah, what could men do under these circumstances ? You 
are to consider those things. We were placed in that 
dilemma; what should we do? Besides, if you will turn to the 
printed Testimony you will find a statement made of this kind : 
4 'Xo association of men on earth is infallible and there is no 
certainty that any one particular church in any particular 
place shall remain always pure. ,, One reason I assign why 
I voted against the adoption of the report on union at the 
last meeting of Synod was because the church had already 
forsaken her historic position. She gave up that historic 
position in 1863 when there was'the adoption of the oath for 
Covenanters entering the army. I hold that still to be the 
case. I remember reading a certain discussion concerning 
that matter by the Kev. William Milroy, a man who was 
beloved by myself, and who was highly respected by all the 
members of this court, in which he showed clearly that if 
that was persisted in the church was losing her historic 
position, and at the end of that discussion he gave utterance 
to a prophecy, the very prophecy that is being fulfilled at 
this very day. There was a discussion begun in 1863 and ever 
since there has been the utterance of doctrines and of 
sentiments that are opposed to and are destructive of the 
Reformed Presbyterian Church, and accordingly we have 



52 



STENOGRAPHIC REPORT. 



again in the same chapter of our Testimony, the 21st, Sec. 5 : 
"When any church imposes sinful terms of communion, when 
the constitution is anti- scriptural, when the administration is 
corrupt and attempts at its reformation have proved inef- 
fectual it is the duty of Christians to separate from it: and if 
the majority should violate the terms upon which church 
members were united it is lawful for the minority to testify 
against the defection and to walk by the rule of their former 
attainments.'" "It is lawful for a minority to testify against 
the defection and to walk by the rule of their former attain- 
ments." Xow I have done nothing in connection with this 
whole matter, the publishing of the East End Platform, but 
give publication to the teachings that my father taught me, 
and in that I have declared and declare now that I repudiate 
the teachings of political philosophy that were given me in 
my college and in my seminary course and fall back upon the 
teachings of my beloved father who never accepted this 
philosophy and* who held that that action of 18(53 was a 
defection from the historic position of the church. 

Now, here was a case of defection. We were placed in a 
position that we could not and did not know what to do- 
Here were the interpretations of Synod concerning this case. 
Here were the interpretations of church courts. What should 
we do? Well. Brethren. I felt like following the example of 
my grandfather. In 1832 he was asked when he applied for 
licensure to accept the interpretation of the Philadelphia 
Presbytery as to the moral character of the United States 
Government. He refused to accept that interpretation and 
was refused license. He would not submit to the interpretation 
of the law by the Presbytery of the church. Following that 
same example I joined with my brethren to testify against the 
defections of the majority of this church in holding the East 
End Meeting, and my one great aim in holding that meeting 
was to help the church get rid of these false teachings, these 
errors, and these heresies and come back to the grand old 
position that was held by our fathers and on which they 
triumphed. Xow there is the right of the minority to testify. 
How shall they testify? As individuals or by gathering and 
determing what their testimony shall be? Certainly by having 
their meetings. Certainly by publishing their platforms. 
That was what was done by Cameron and Cargill before the 
publication of their Declaration ; there was a private meeting ; 
they discussed that matter and then the platform was pub- 
lished — the Sanquhar Declaration. Then again there was 
another meeting on the 15th of December 1661. Kepresenta- 
tives from all the societies were gathered there. It was a 
secret meeting. They organized for correspondence; they 
deliberated upon and afterward published the Kutherglen 
Declaration. There is an example and these examples may 
be multiplied again and again. Now we wish you to under- 



WEDNESDAY, JUNE 3. 



53 



stand here that we are. arguing on behalf of the right o,f a 
minority to hold private meetings and to publish their plat- 
forms and their testimony against the defections of the 
majority. 

Xow we come to the concrete case. The question is was 
the East End Meeting justifiable or not? The Presbytery tried 
to condemn both the principle as given unto us in our own 
Declaration and Testimony and likewise at the same time to 
condemn the concrete case. 

If you will refer to the Minutes of Presbytery you will find 
that they published many declarations, one of which is this: 
4 'That Presbytery expresses its condemnation of the East End 
Meeting of July 22nd — [the date is wrong. Brethren; 
that meeting was held on July 15th] — as having been held 
without due regard to the act of the last Synod and as having 
by its methods and utterances awakened apprehension 
throughout the church." Now notice in this act the first 
charge against us is. that the East End Meeting was held 
without due regard to the last Synod. What act? It is not 
specified in this Kesolution and we are. left to take the 
Minutes of the last Synod and determine for ourselves what act 
was determined. What act? Does it mean this act? • -Witnes- 
ses for Christ's royal claims may act in voluntary association 
without pressing, in connection with such an organization, 
the duties of political dissent." Turn, if you wish, to the 
227th page of the Minutes for 1890. In the thirtieth chapter 
of the Declaration, civil association is declared to be a 
voluntary association. See the false philosophy. See what 
that Synod' itself unanimously adopted and .unanimously 
published. Of course that was not the . act our brethren inten- 
ded but we might as well refer to that act as any other. They 
refer us to the act found in the report of the Committee on 
Discipline, the third item of that report, which is in answer 
to the paper brought up from the congregation of Boston. 

Now we wish you to notice concerning the act forbidding- 
free discussion that it comes up in connection with the request 
to repeal the act of 1889 in regard to voting on Constitutional 
Amendments, and as part of the answer to that request forbids 
those opposed to the act of 1889 to discuss further that 
question. But this act is on a parallel with the act of 1868 
which forbade members of the church to vote on Constitu- 
tional Amendments. Both of these acts were passed at the 
close of a session of Synod, being reported by the committee 
on discipline when the members of Synod being weary and 
anxious to return home were unfitted to consider and pass 
important acts. The act of 1868 has been held to be invalid, 
and the arguments have been before this court again and 
again, on these accounts, passed at the close of Synod when 
the members were tired and weary and there was not due 
opportunity given to consider and adopt the act. 



54 



STENOGRAPHIC BE PORT. 



The same thing- that invalidated the act of 1868, certainly 
argues against the validity of the act of 1890 forbidding 
free discussion, — brought up at the last hours of Synod, after 
the hour of nine o'clock, and adopted, and then by a very 
small majority. Why should Presbytery then insist on the 
act of 1890 as valid when it itself did not hold to the validity 
of the act of 1868. in urging the Synod in 1889 to give a 
deliverance on the consistency of voting for constitutional 
amendments? We may properly doubt the validity' of the act 
of 1890. 

The East End Meeting is also condemned because of its 
methods. The word ' 'methods* * being plural there are at least 
two methods that are objectionable. These methods are not 
directly named, but one of them probably is the secrecy 
connected with the East End Meeting. This secrecy is that 
which certainly created alarm. 

The only ground upon which secrecy can be condemued is 
Section 5, Error 7 of the 22nd Chapter of our Testimony. The 
Testimony certainly condemns secrect associations. Before 
the 15th of July there was no association, there is a 
difference between a secret association and a meeting of 
persons in private. We simply held a private meeting of 
those who were supposed to have the same views, so as to. 
determine what we should do. 

The East End Meeting was a private meeting. There was 
no formal call, no pre-arranged programme. There was no 
grip; there was no pass-word ; there was no pledge or oath ; 
there were no secret rites. We, as representing a minority, 
held a private meeting as to what action we should take. In 
this we followed the example of the martyrs. Those society 
meetings from 1681 to 1690, what were they? Secret meetings. 
Ay, and they had their pass-word, and their pass-word was 
b 'Reformation.'' If we condemn this meeting on account of 
its privacy then do we condemn those who gave Renwick to 
the world. 

Another method, is the fact that we formed an organi- 
zation, — the fact that we formed an organization. This fact 
the Presbytery in its Letter claims to have been ignorant of 
at the time of beginning process against us : "It is one of the 
facts that came before the court as the trial progressed, that 
the East End Meeting, as proven by its official minutes, 
effected a permanent organization on the basis of the Plat- 
form then and there adopted." That is the language of 
Presbytery's I etter. 

Now, we remark on that, the official minutes of the East 
End Meeting were never before Presbytery. And we remark 
further, there are in existence no offi'cial'minutes of the East 
End Meeting. This claim of proof from this source is not 
true. It was because the elders and ministers believed that 
such an organization had been formed that Presbytery 



WEDNESDAY. JL'NE 3. 



5o 



introduced the processes against us. The East End Meeting 
was held on the 15th of July. The Elders' Convention was 
held on the 12th of August' The call for this Convention 
was circulated before the date of its assembling. In this call 
is this language : "It appears from reports in the puplic 
press, and from others sources, that a meeting has been held 
by certain ministers and elders of the Eeformed Presbyterian 
Church, styling themselves the friends of Christian union' 
and forming an organization." There is the language in the 
call for the Elders' Convention. They charge "us with 
forming an organzation. And yet Presbytery claims that this 
fact came out as the trial was carried on. 

This call came officially before Presbytery in paper Xo. 5. 
In paper Xo. 12. being Memorial and Petition from the 
Session of Beaver Falls, is the following statement: "Under 
the plea of promoting Christian union, they have formed an 
organisation and formulated a platform." I hat is in a 
Memorial from the Session of Beaver Falls congregation. 
And vet. members of Presbytery who aided in getting up that 
Memorial, in Presbytery stated that they were surprised that 
an organization had* been formed. 

The Judicial Committee evidently believed the same thing, 
for the first item of their basis of agreement reads thus: 
••We disavow the East End Platform as a bond of union 
within the Eeformed Presbyterian Church." Why did they 
ask us to di-avow the Platform as a bond of union if they did 
not believe that there was an organization. 

Thus the claim. 1 1 be found in the Pastoral Letter, that the 
knowledge of the supposed organization came from the 
official minutes of the East End Meeting is false when the 
proof is abundant that the very belief of such an organization 
is that which led to instituting process. But was there an 
organization formed'? The East End Meeting adjourned 
without date. On the basis of the East End Platform there 
stands no organization, nor ever did stand any organization. 
Our adheranee is n t that of an organized body but of 
individuals. Thus the methods of the East End Meeting need 
not have awakened apprehensions in the church. 

And yet. dear Fathers and Brethren, we wish to say this: 
If you preserve to the minority the right to have their private 
meeeting. and the right to publish their platform in answer 
to their grievances and misrepresentations, and yet look upon 
the East End Meeting as ill avised. as imprudent, as unwise, 
as not having been justified by the circumstances of the case, 
we will bow with submission to your sentence. We wish you 
to distinguish between the abstract right and this one 
concrete case. If you simply admit the right of a minority 
to hold this meeting, we are willing to admit that certain 
concrete cases may be unwise, imprudent and hasty. 

However, we were placed under process because we were 



o6 



STENOGRAPHIC REPORT. 



present at the East End Meeting and continued to adhere to 
the East End'Platform. And our continued adherence to 
this Platform is claimed to be a divisive course. The Pastoral 
Letter has this language: "The fact that the Covenanter 
Church is to-day being divided is not disputed by anyone. 
A number of the congregations under this Presbytery are 
admitted on all hands to be in this unhappy condition. 
What congregations? All readers of this letter will inquire. 
Those congregations under the pastoral care of the seven 
ministers. What divided these congregations? The East 
End Meeting and Platform, or the Elders' Convention and 
the institution of proceedings on the part of Presbytery? 

Notice that Presbytery's attention was called to this 
Meeting and Platform by several papers from various sources. 
Notice that not one of these papers came from congregations 
of which the seven ministers were pastors, except paper No. 
7, being Memorial from New Alexandria congregation. And 
this Memorial expresses dissatisfaction with its pastor, not 
because he attended the East End Meeting but because he 
voted with the minority at Synod. 

Four of these congregations sent petitions to Presbytery, 
testifying to the faithfulness of their pastors and asking 
Presbytery to cease proceedings against them, claiming that 
further proceedings would be detrimental to their congregra- 
tional work. To these petitions Presbytery turned a deaf ear. 
To some of these witnesses Presbytery never paid the least 
attention. These congregations, feeling themselves to be 
slighted and cast off by Presbytery, are now in a divided 
condition, not because of the East End Meeting and Platform, 
but because of the instituting of proceedings by Presbytery. 
That is what divided the members of these congregations, 
the one against the other; and hence their condition is due 
not to us, but to Presbytery, in refusing to listen to their 
testimony. 

The East End Meeting is likewise condemned because of 
its, utterances. But as this takes in matter that is hardly 
appropriate in an appeal, and as we wish simply to adhere to 
the law, we will not attempt, at this time, to defend the East 
End Platform, leaving that to come up in another case, and 
to be defended by more able men. 

But we wish you to consider this : We believed ourselves to 
have cause of sufficient importance and gravity to justify the 
holding of the East End Meeting and the issuing of the East 
End Platform. Presbytery did not consider this fact. This 
fact is essential to a right and just judgment, and on this 
ground we ask you to sustain our appeal. 

My second reason of appeal is, Because Presbytery was 
induced to institute the process against us by misrepresenta- 
tions of the purpose and aim of the East End Conference and 
Platform. 



WEDNESDAY, JUNE 3. 



57 



My appeal specifies five items under this reason. These 
items call attention to ten papers presented to Presbytery, 
which call Presbytery's attention to ns as followers of 
devisive courses. To these items as stated in my appeal, 
(and as printed), I call your serious and careful attention, and 
to save your time and mine, I simply call attention to certain 
facts. 

First. Ail these papers, with the exception of No. 24, 
make no mention of the published purposes of the East End 
Meeting and Platform. I want to emphasize that. All these 
papers, with the exception of No. 24, make no mention of the 
published purpose of the East End Meeting and Platform. 
That purpose, as published with the Platform, is "to correct 
the misrepresentations of our position, and show to all 
concerned exactly where we stand." Surely it would have 
been no injury to truth and the peace and unity of the church 
had the promoters of these papers made mention of this 
purpose and given to it whatever credit it deserved. The best 
way to convince a man of the error of his way is to meet him 
on his own ground and show him how untenable it is. But 
the promoters of these papers ignored our purpose and 
imputed to us other motives. This ignoring of our purpose 
is evidence to us that a partial and not an impartial decision 
was desired. 

Second. In paper No. 24. the only paper that makes 
mention of our purpose, one half of this purpose is suppressed 
and the other ha f misquoted. This paper is a libel against 
Rev. H. W. Temple. The charge against him is causing to 
be published the East End Platform. The Platform itself is 
inserted in the libel. Immediately after the Platform as 
inserted in the libel, follows this sentence: "Your com- 
munication stating that the Platform was published 'to show 
to all concerned where we stand.* " Now there is omitted 
from this the phrase "to correct the misrepresentations of our 
position," and the word •exactly" is omitted from the second 
part of this phrase. Thus one important part of our purpose 
was suppressed, in one paper introduced before Presbytery. 
Such suppression is misleading, and betrays rather the 
partisan politician than the methods of a true-minded man. 

Third. In some of these papers an altogether different 
purpose is imputed to us. This especially is the case in 
paper No. 5, being resolution adopted at the Convention of 
Elders of Pittsburgh Presbytery. In this paper is inserted 
the call for the Elders' Convention with a list of signers' 
names, and some of these names are forgeries. This call has 
this language : "Forming an organization for the express 
purpose of seeking the abandonment, by the Covenanter 
Church, of her distinctive principles and practices, as is openly 
declared in their published Platform." We have already 
shown that no permanent organization was formed. We have 



58 



STENOGRAPHIC REPORT. 



called your attention to the published purpose of the Plat- 
form, u to correct the misrepresentations of our position and 
to show exactly where we stand." Now, we ask the writers 
of the call to* the Elders 1 Convention, where is it openly 
declared in our published Platform that we formed an 
organization for the express purpose of seeking the abandon- 
ment by the Covenanter Church of her distinctive principles 
and practices? It cannot be found in that sheet. It cannot 
even be found by way of inference or implication. It is a 
base misrepresentation of the purpose of the East End 
Meeting and Platform. This same misrepresentation is re- 
peated in several of the memorials, and by such misrepre- 
sentations was Presbytery induced to institute proceedings 
against us. 

Fourth. Again, in some of these papers Presbytery is 
asked to take such action as is contrary to the principles, 
Declaration and Testimony of the Keformed Presbyterian 
Church. Especially is this the case in the papers No. 11 and 
15, being memorials from the sessions of New Castle and 
Slippery Rock. These memorials are the same, word for 
word, with the exception of the name of the congregation. 
In these memorials is this languge : ,k We humbly submit that 
in the wisdom God may give you, this Presbytery should 
offer to our mistaken and erring brethren the choice of one of 
three things; either, first, they should be given letters admit- 
ting them to other denominations where they can find agree- 
ment with their views. 11 This is the first alternative. The 
session of New Castle and Slippery Rock asked Presbytery 
to offer us, '"first, they should be given letters admitting 
them to other denominations where they could find agree- 
ment with their views.' 1 Now the especial principle of the 
Declaration and Testimony violated by this proposal is in 
chapter 21, section 4: "It is the duty of a Christian to pray 
for the reformation of Christ's Church, to inquire what part 
adheres most closely to the Scripture plan, and without prej- 
udice join iu that communion which is most pure, and in which 
he may prove most useful in the service of Christ.' 1 This is a duty 
which I may claim to have done. By inquiring I have found 
the Reformed Presbyterian Church to adhere most closely to 
the Scriptures. I have without prejudice offered myself to that 
church as a member. I have been examined by competent 
court«, and my examination has been sustained, and I have been 
admitted both as a member and as a minister of that church. 

Now, no member, no minister, no session, no Presbytery, 
after I have been received into the church, has any right to 
say to me, your views agree with the principles of some other 
denomination; leave us and take a letter from us and join 
that denomination. But this is what the New Castle session 
requested Presbytery to ask us to do. If my views should be 
found out of harmony with the standards of the church, I 



WEDNESDAY, JUNE 3. 



59 



should be placed on trial, and those views should be proved 
to be false. But because some supposed them to be false, it 
is certainly out of place to ask me to take a letter of standing 
to some other denomination. Yet, that was what Presbytery 
was asked to do. By so doing- they asked Presbytery to be- 
come guilty with them of the error which the Declaration 
and Testimony condemned, — u That it is a matter of indif- 
ference to what church a person belongs. The Pastoral 
Letter attempts to defend Presbytery by claiming that Pres- 
bytery offered to us these letters of standing. The language 
in the Pastoral Letter is: "The simplest and easiest solution 
of the difficulty, therefore, seemed to be that those whose 
position and convictions were so vitally opposed to the posi- 
tion and convictions of the church and of the Presbytery 
should be permitted to go into some other ecclesiastical body, 
where they would find themselves at home and at peace with 
their surroundings^ and where their course would not be 
divisive, either in their own judgment or tha t of their ecclesias- 
tical brethren. It was proposed to them consequently to choose 
their church connections elsewhere, and Presbytery would 
give them certificates of standing. But this peaceful dismissal 
was peremptorily declined.? That is the language of the 
Pastoral Letter. Now such a proposal is contrary to Cove- 
nanter principle, and so. as Covenanters, we could not. 
accept it. 

It is claimed that such proposal was offered on the ground 
that the position and conviction of the minority were opposed 
to the position and convictions of the majority and not on the 
ground that the position and convictions of the accused were 
opposed to the principles of the Declaration and Testimony; 
hence we are asked to leave the church because our inter- 
pretation of the standards does uot agree with that of the 
majority. The Pastoral Letter hints that our course was in 
our own judgment divisive. But this is what we deny, and to 
have accepted letters of standing under these circumstances 
would be the disavowal of our denial. But what is more to 
the point; Presbytery never offered us certificates of standing 
to other denominations, and so we had no chance to accept 
or refuse them. A resolution was introduced to that effect, 
but Presbytery itself voted down the resolution, and there is 
no record of it in the minutes. Thus the Pastoral Letter 
resorts to falsehood in order to justify the action of Pres- 
bytery. 

Fifth. All these papers asked Presbytery to take uncalled 
for and unnecessary action. We have shown that our Decla- 
ration and Testimony gives to the minority. the right of free 
speech, free assembly and a free press. We have shown that 
our East End Meeting and Platform were in accordance with 
the right of the minority. We admit that our meetiug may 
have been unwise and imprudent. We may have been hasty 



60 



STENOGRAPHIC REPORT. 



and rash. We may have caused displeasure to our brethren. 
But this imprudence, rashness and displeasure, were not suf- 
ficient cause for discipline to be applied to us. The Declara- 
tion and Testimony condemns as an error this statement. 
"That a professor should be ceusured by a church judicatory 
for everything at which another may justly be displeased." 
(Chapter 31 , Error 2.) 

Xow we grant that brethren in the church may be justly 
displeased at our East End Meeting and Platform ; but the 
fact of their being justly displeased, according to the second 
error condemned in the 31st chapter of the Testimony, was no 
ground for instituting proceedings against us. Because mis- 
representations of our Meeting and Platform induced Pres- 
bytery to institute proceedings that are contrary to the 
Declaration and Testimony, I ask Synod to sustain my appeal. 

My third reason of appeal has to do with the withdrawal of 
my assent from the basis of agreement proposed by the 
Judicial Committee. As to th.s reason. [ wish you to con- 
sider that I was deceived as to the nature of the Judicial 
Committee. When I gave my assent to the basis of agree- 
ment I believed myself to be treating with a judicial com- 
mission, and not with a committee. This belief that it was 
a commission and not a committee was based upon the 
following considerations : 

1st. It had the powers of a commission conferred upon it. 
— to "make further effort to agree upon a basis of settle- 
ment; if such effort proves unavailing, then this committee 
shall have full power to call witnesses before them to 
ascertain the facts, and if found necessary to frame charges 
and call a special meeting of Presbytery, and cite the parties 
and witnesses to appear." Is not that the power of a com- 
mission rather than of a committee? 

2nd. It was appointed according to the custom of the 
Pittsburgh Presbytery of appointing commissions. The 
members were nominated by the committee on supplies and 
then approved by the court. Committees are generally ap- 
pointed by the Moderator; commissions by the court. 
Because this was appointed by the court I believed it to be a 
commission. 

3rd. Some appointed on this Commission were not mem- 
bers of Presbytery. Mark that, some appointed on this Judi- 
cial Committee or Commission were not members of Pres- 
bytery. It has been the custom of Pittsburgh Presbytery to 
appoint elders, not members of Presbytery, on commissions: 
but all members of committees must be members of the court 
appointing them. Thus I believed this to be a Judicial Com- 
mission. 

4th. I was asked to attend the meeting of the Judicial 
Commission in the Central Reformed Presbyterian Church 
on October 22nd. 1890. at one o'clock in the afternoon. 



WEDNESDAY, JUNE 3. 



(51 



This belief of mine is still farther sustained by personal 
testimony and circumstantial evidence. 

First. It was constituted as a commission on October 22nd 
1890. The chairman was Rev. J. W. Sproull, D. D.. and he 
was likewise the second member of the Committee on Dis- 
cipline which framed the resolution directing the appoint- 
ment of the body. He -had a good chance to know whether a 
commission or. a committee was contemplated. He had as 
good an opportunity of knowing whether-a commission or a 
committee was contemplated as any other member of the 
Committee on Discipline. Trusting to his memory, (and Dr. 
Sproull has a good memory,) he constituted a commission, 
and then after the court was constituted he learned his mis- 
take by the reading of the Minute which authorized their 
appointment and detined their work. 

Second. There is strong circumstantial evidence that the 
chairman of the Committee on Discipline, after the report of 
the Committee on Discipline had been adopted and after the 
Presbytery adjourned, changed the word ''commission" to 
"committee.'" 

Dr. R. J. GEORGE : Mr. Moderator, 1 ask the clerk to take 
down that statement. 

Mr. H. W. REED : And in the same resolution inserted the 
words "and if successful to call a special meeting of Pres- 
bytery for its consideration.'' 

Dr. R. J. GEORGE : Take down the full statement. 1 suppose 
of course it appears in the written manuscript. 

Rev. H. W.REED: It is right here, (referring to written 
manuscript.) 

Dr. GEORGE : I wish it taken down so that the exact words 
will be reproduced. Of course, I claim, as a question of 
privilege, being chairman of the Committee, to whom the 
allusion is made, to hold the author of it responsible: and I 
therefore wish the statement to be on the record. 

Rev. H. W. REED: Now I will ask your attention to the 
evidence on which 1 have made this charge : 

1. The Report of the Committee on Discipline was amended 
and adopted, as appears in the records of Pittsburgh Pres- 
bytery. Item JS T o. 6 was stricken out. But here is one portion 
of the Minutes of Pittsburgh Presbytery that is incomplete; it 
makes no mention of Item No. 6 being stricken out. The 
copy of the report in the clerk's hands contains no erasures or 
insertions for amendment. Remember, the copy of the 
report of the Committee of Discipline in the clerk's hands 
contains no erasures or insertions for amendment. The clerk 
of Pittsburgh Presbytery stated that the original report of the 
Committee on Discipline never came into his hands, and that 
he only received a corrected copy of the original report. Now 
there are three witnesses to this statement made by the clerk 
of Pittsburgh Presbytery. Besides this, no copy of the report 



62 



STENOGRAPHIC REPORT. 



was in the clerk's possession until after the meeting of the 
Committee on October 22nd, 1890. The clerk left before Pitts- 
burgh Presbytery adjourned, and went east to attend certain 
arrangements he had made. He was not present at the 
special meeting of Presbytery on November 4th, and the 
chairman of the Committee on Discipline retained the 
original copy in his possession for the use of the judicial 
Committee. 

2. The original draft of the recommendation of the com- 
mittee on supplies nominating the members of this Commis- 
sion has the abbreviation, "Com." : — "The Judicial Com. shall 
consist of the following persons, ,, — and the syllables \mittee" 
are inserted with a lead pencil. Now, Judicial "Com." might 
mean Commission or Committee, and somebody, for a definite 
purpose, removed the doubt by inserting the syllables "mit- 
tee" with a lead pencil. 

3. The great surprise of myself and others when a special 
meeting of Presbytery was called for November 4th, 1890. 
We left the Judicial Committee believing the whole matter 
would rest until the regular meeting of Presbytery in April. 
1891. We knew that Presbytery must pass upon the work of 
the Commission; but we felt that Presbytery had so great 
confidence in the Commission that no special meeting was 
desired or needed. When word came to me by postal card of 
a special meeting to be held on the 4th of November to take 
action on the Report of the Judicial Committee I was sur- 
prised. The week following, for a few days I kept asking 
myself, "What does this mean?" I hardly knew what to do 
or what to think, and many others were likewise surprised, 
because we supposed the whole matter would rest until the 
meeting in April, 1891. Now, on these accounts, and on those 
in the same connection, stated in our appeal, we beg of you, 
for the sake of truth and impartiality, for the sake of right 
and justice; to sustain our appeal. I am just as willing that 
my statement should go in the Minutes of Synod as my 
brother is. 

My next reason of appeal has to do with the manner of 
reaching the verdict. I shall not enter into the detailed items 
under this head. In this, perhaps there is much matter that 
is irrelevant to an appeal, we not knowing exactly . what 
should enter and what should not enter. I then pass oyer this 
matter and enter not upon its discussion to-day, but simply 
rest my case with the statement I have made, in addition to 
this: Not one of the prosecutors of the cases presented to 
Pittsburgh Presbytery came to me personally and talked 
these matters over. Members of my own congregation who 
condemned it, members of my own session who likewise con- 
demned it, did come, and I was so able to explain the matter 
to them that they could hot find much fault, and they were 
willing to go on with me in the work of the Lord, paying 



WEDNESDAY, JUNE 3. 



63 



no attention to this diversity of sentiment that might exist 
amongst us. And so it has been with every member that 
has talked this matter over with me. I have not been difficult 
to approach. Had the law of Christ in the 18th chapter of 
Matthew been followed, I am certain that the Pittsburg Pres- 
bytery would never, as far as I am concerned, have had its 
attention called by any paper to any of these things; and be- 
cause this law was not observed, and was not followed out to 
the very letter, I ask this Synod to sustain my appeal, and to 
take whatsoever other action the Synod itself may deem just 
and righteous. 

But I have a second appeal, and I presume I should go on 
with that. 
The MODERATOR : Yes, sir. 

Rev. H. W. REED : My second appeal is with regard to the 
sentence of suspension. Xow I wish to make a statement here. 
We were first tried on a libel. The libel was sustained, and 
just as soon as the libel was sustained ws took our appeal to 
Synod. Then after that appeal had been taken, a resolution 
was introduced suspending us from the ministry in the Re- 
formed Presbyteriau Church until we would give satisfactory 
evidence ef repentance; and the sentence was pronounced. 
Then after that we took a second appeal. Now the question 
of sustaining the libel is one thing. The next question, as to 
the severity of the sentence, is another. I wish to call atten- 
tion to my reasons of appeal from my suspension : 

First. Because the appeal from the verdict sustaining the 
libel should have stayed all further proceedings, and espe- 
cially the act passing suspension upon me. My attention was 
called yesterday to the old Scottish law found in the collec- 
tion of Walter Steuart. I quote from the edition of 1802, page 
195 : u An appeal being made by parties should sist (or stop) 
the execution of the sentence appealed from only while the 
appeal is duly and diligently prosecute and may thereby be 
determined, otherwise not, unless the judicatory appealed to 
receive the appeal and take the affair before them, and in that 
case the judicatory appealed from is to sist until the appeal 
be discussed.'" There is the old Scotch law as to the effect 
and power of an appeal as to suspending subsequent proceed- 
ings. • 

Again, from this Scotch law, on page 194, I quote : "Sen- 
tences are in themselves null when pronounced against the 
general acts of the church, or by an incompetent judge, such 
as the sentences of Kirk Sessions against ministers, or even by 
Presbyteries and Synods when the process is carried and ad- 
mitted before their superior judicatory. The appeal is the 
removal of the process from the inferior to the superior judi- 
catory." 

We took our appeal from the verdict sustaining the libel, 
thereby carrying it, as far as time was given us, to the supe- 



G4 



STENOGRAPHIC REPORT. 



rior judicatory. The old Scotch law, which is nevertheless 
the law of our church, is that that should have prevented this 
sentence of suspension being passed upon us. I know we 
were referred to certain provis ons made in the law of other 
Presbyterian bodies of the present day ; but I wish you to 
understand that our terms of communion bind us to testify 
against unscriptural constitutions, both of church and state, 
and we are separated from the other churches around about 
us because their constitutions are immoral, because their con- 
stitutions are corrupt, and their explanations of the law are 
not authority* in the Reformed Presbyterian Church. We rest 
our case not on what other churches have decided, but upon 
what our own fathers of the Reformation times acted upon 
and held to be their guide. 

But again, because the act of suspension prevents me from 
fulfilling my ministerial vows and discharging my pastoral 
duties to the congregation over which the Lord has placed 
me, and interferes with my influence over certain ones who 
are inquiring the way of salvation. I have charge, brethren, 
in an important town in Ohio, of what might be called a mis- 
sion station. Our work was going on nicely. We were adding 
every communion season to the membership of the church. 
We were not only bringing in persons from other congrega- 
tions, but we were successful in bringing back to the chnrch 
many who had heretofore been lost. And we had likewise 
been successful in bringing in from the streets of the world 
those who hitherto made no profession of the name of Christ; 
and there were many at this time inquiring the way to Christ. 
From the moment I was suspended I could not reach them; 
I had no power over them. Our work in Youngstown has 
been injured by the course of Presbytery in suspending me 
from the ministry, especially when from my own congrega- 
tion there came no complaint, no charge, but in which there 
was much dissatisfaction with the act of Presbytery in sus- 
pending me from the ministry in the Reformed Presbyterian 
Church. 

A third reason is. because it deprives the loyal, faithful and 
trusting people, for no fault of their own. by no complaint 
made by them to Presbytery, and against their express wishes 
and desire, of the preaching. of the gospel and pastoral care 
of one whom they, by personal knowledge, know to be true 
to the principles, positions and practices of the Refoimed 
Presbyterian Church. My congregation never sent up any 
memorial to Presbytery in my behalf, but they have given me 
verbal testimony. Some of them have said, since the East 
End Platform was published, they never heard more preach- 
ing or better preaching on the principles of the church since 
the days of Robert Gibson. 

The MODERATOR announced that the next speaker in 
order was Rev. E. M. Milligan. 



WEDNESDAY. JUNE 3. 



65 



Key. E. M. MILLIGAN : Mr. Moderator, there is one thing I 
desire specially to say at the very beginning of my remarks, 
and that is. that it is with a great deal of sorrow that J find 
myself to-day before the highest court of God's house in the 
Eeformed Presbyterian Church, appealing from and com- 
plaining of the treatment I have received from brethren in a 
lower court. And I feel in justice to my brethren of the 
lower court that -I should say that the complaints of injustice 
and wrong that are inserted in my appeal are not to be under- 
stood in any sense as reflecting upon every member of that 
Presbytery. I will say further, that at that Presbytery and 
since the meeting of Presbytery. I have declared my firm 
belief that the majority of the members of Pittsburgh Pres- 
bytery were sincere, were honest, and desired simply, in what 
they did. to do justice. And I would to God that I could stand 
here to-day and say that my firm belief, with respect to all 
the members of Pittsburgh Presbytery was similar. But I 
believe that certain leaders of this Presbytery inspired the 
others, and led them on to do me a great injustice; led them 
on until to-day we stand here brothers against brothers, and 
the cause of Christ in the Eeformed Presbyterian Church 
languishing. And I must also, in justice, say that while my 
latter remarks apply to the leaders of Pittsburgh Presbytery, 
yet I must make exception of one member in particular who, 
at every meeting, and during all this trouble, has shown him- 
self earnest and desirous of settling the troubles in our church 
on a peaceful basis, and to remove the trouble in a way that 
would glorify God. be just to the church, and spare the 
ministers who have for six months been suspended from the. 
ministry. — and that person is Dr. J. W. Sproull. 

With these remarks allow me briefly to present the reasons 
that I have of appeal to this superior judicatory of our church. 
And I know that there are a great many points that I have in 
common with my brethren, and. as I do not wish to afflict this 
court with an unnecessary long session. I will merely allude 
to the points that have been touched upon by my brother who 
has preceded me. in so far as we have them in common, and 
I will try to leave plenty of time and plenty of room for those 
who shall follow me. and so that we will not all be beating 'm\ 
the same track. 

In my appeal to this court, the first reason is. because the 
trial was begun and carried on under the influence of preju- 
dice and misrepresentation, which made my condemnation 
certain before the trial began. No one of those condemning me 
ever came to show me my sin. but contrary to Matthew, 18th 
chapter, loth and 17th verses, they began to deal with me 
under a threat of discipline, which course they presumed to 
justify on the widely circulated declarations, made by certain 
of themselves, that I had denied Covenanter principles; that 
I had repudiated the doctrine of political dissent, and that I 



60 



STENOGRAPHIC REPORT. 



was seeking to lead the church into defection from Covenan- 
ter principles ; all of which assertions were ungrounded and 
unqualifiedly false. I firmly believe the doctrine of our stand- 
ards and adhere in theory and practice to the Covenanter 
theory and practice in regard to political dissent. Xow. the 
point that is brought up in this first item is in regard to the 
fact that the trial, by which I was suspended, was begun and 
carried on under the influence of prejudice and misrepresent- 
ation, that made my trial and suspension certain before I was 
tried. The first point that I have named to show the spirit 
was,, that none of these brethren, who were constituted the 
Court, of Christ's House, which is over me in the Lord, ever 
came to me to show me that I had done anything wrong. 

You have all heard how the East End Meeting ever came to 
be held, and I here now add my testimony to the facts that 
the brother has stated in regard to that East End Meeting. It 
was the misrepresentation that was going on all over this 
church, that was meeting us at every turn; it was the mis- 
representations that were hanging like a pall over us and pre- 
venting us from carrying forward our work, that made some 
step necessaiy to dispel this cloud and enable us to place our- 
selves fairly and squarely before the church. And if our judg- 
ment was wrong, if our opinions were contraiy to the opinions 
of the majority, we were willing to place those opinions on 
paper in order that that majority might judge and determine 
for themselves. 

But we were not willing to have the voice of suspicion and 
the poisoned tongue of the whisperer going around among 
■our congregations, and among the church, branding us as 
traitors to the cause of Jesus Christ, branding us as an organ- 
ization of disturbers, and men who were determined to lead 
the church into defection. Hence we put on paper precisely 
what we did believe, in order that we might be held respons- 
ible for our beliefs, but not for the charges that were being so 
widely circulated against us. As a result of this the Fast End 
Meeting was held, — a meeting of prayer, a meeting in which 
the guidance of God's Holy Spirit was asked for. a meeting 
t he very last thought of which was to bring trouble to the 
Reformed Presbyterian Church. Ay. brethren, the design 
of that meeting was to bring peace to the church that we love 
by correctiTig misrepresentations, and we never supposed for 
one moment, even though our opinions might be wrong, even 
though the majority in the church might believe and believe 
honestly that our opinions were contraiy to the teachings and 
standards, that a mistake in judgment would, in the Reformed 
Presbyterian Church, be held as a heinous and scandalous sin. 

Now, after that meeting was held and the platform of the 
meeting was ordered to be given to the church magazines in 
order that our brethren might know precisely what our opin- 
ions were, and that they might know that the assertions that 



WEDNESDAY, JUNE 3. 



67 



we were false to the testimony and false to the covenants, and 
false to the work of the church, were untrue, a daily . paper 
took our platform and wrote up a sensational item ; and in 
this paper there were a great many statements made. 

On the Wednesday that that paper was published I was 
^ast. I read the account of the East End Meeting, and that 
night when I went to the prayer meeting where my people 
were assembled I referred to this matter. I told them, Breth- 
ren, I was at this East End Meeting, I helped to formulate 
that Platform. "At that time I told them all that there was 
to be known in regard to the East End Meeting and the East 
End Platform. I told them precisely what the design of that 
meeting was, and I told them that so far from our object 
being to destroy the church or to work discord in our ranks, it 
was to settle the peace of Zion and restore peace and harmony 
to the church in which I had my birth, and the church of my 
choice. 

That settled the matter so far as my people were concerned. 
I had never preached on any of the principles of the East End 
Platform. I had never in my pulpit said aught against any 
principle of the Reformed Presbyterian Church; but I did, 
not only from my pulpit, but in the homes of members of 
other denominations, carry the principles to the goverment. 
And I have challenged debate in Parnassus, on the principles 
of our church. Never have I, by tongue or pen, said aught 
against the principles of the Reformed Presbyterian Church 
in the matter of political dissent or the matter of the applica- 
tion of those principles to the government of the United 
States. 

My people there were satisfied, and I had just had a season 
of trial in my home, and so they voted me a month's vacation. 
I dismissed the East End Meeting from my mind. I forgot 
all about the sensational newspaper report that had been 
written up, and I went off for a brief season of rest and recre- 
ation. While I was in the east I learned that certain ministers 
of Pittsburgh Presbytery were writing letters to my congrega- 
tion, writing letters to my elders, trying to stir them up and 
get them to go on a call for an Elders' Convention. 

The elder who told me this said that he had received a 
letter from one of the ministers of Pittsburgh Presbytery and 
he wrote back to him and said, ki No, you are going to make 
trouble; you are going to make trouble if you do anything of 
that kind." and that he was directly opposed to that Elders' 
Convention. Nevertheless, if 1 am correctly informed, not a 
member of Parnassus session went on the call for the Elders' 
Convention, — not one; and yet Parnassus session is neverthe- 
less represented there. Not an elder of Parnassus session 
signed the call, but their names are there to the call for that 
Elders' Convention. But what about that call*? Where did it 
originate? On what grounds are the statements in it based? 



6S 



STENOGRAPHIC REPORT. 



The call originated in Beaver Falls. The call contain? in it 
statements that are as false as false can be. Why, brethren, 
if it were not for taking your time I would just like to read to 
yon the East End Platform from beginning to end. and then 
read to yon the call for the Elders' Convention. The man 
who could write that call, with the East End Platform before 
him. remembering that there is a (ji od of justice, who reigns 
in heaven, and who has declared that all liars shall have their 
portion in the lake that burnetii with lire and brimstone, must 
be a man of hardened heart or else of ignorance that is beyond 
my power of belief. That is. if these statements made in that 
call for the Elders" Convention be true, every one of us de- 
serves all we have received. If the statements made in that 
call for the Elders" Convention have even a shadow of founda- 
tion of truth in them, it is little wonder that the Pittsburgh 
Presbytery, and the Reformed Presbyterian Church was 
roused, and that her sons rallied to that bine banner under 
which their fathers fought and died. But what is the truth 
of them? Absolutely none. The statements are false: but 
these statements did their work. There were a great many of 
my beloved fathers among the eldership in the Pittsburgh 
Presbytery, and a great many ministers, who simply looked 
at that call and believed it. Now their fault was in believing 
it without sufficient proof. But they believed it. and it 
prejudiced them against us every one. and the result is. that 
before our trial began, many were on the floor of Pittsburgh 
Presbytery declaring that we ought to be suspended, we ought 
to be suspended ; and the cry was going all over Pittsburgh 
Presbytery: "Those men are traitors to the church: those 
men are seeking the destruction of our beloved Zion : those 
men are not Covenanters.' 1 This was the cry that met 
us, and this was the spirit that was awakened and which we 
had to face when we met Pittsburgh Presbytery for trial. 

Now I mnintain that if the individual who* wrote that call 
for the Elders' Convention, instead of writing it on the state- 
ments of irresponsible newspaper reports, had simply come 
to the friends of Christian union, as known to them or sus- 
pected by them (because they could suspect us before Pitts- 
burgh Presbytery met just as well as after meeting), if that 
individual had come to us and asked us in regard to that 
meeting. I am free to say that there would have been no 
trouble in the church; there would have been no necessity 
for charging us with having a secret organization. I had 
nothing to conceal, and if any one had come to me, any of my 
fathers in the ministery of the Pittsburgh Presbytery, and 
asked me, I should have told them all they desired to know, 
precisely as I had told my people months before Pittsburgh 
Presbytery called me to the bar of justice. For I had every- 
thing to reveal to those who came in the spirit of Matthew, 
the 18th chapter and 15th and 17th verses, and we would have 



WEDNESDAY. JUNE 3. 



69 



soon settled all the trouble. We could soon have explained 
away all the suspicions, and the E;ist End Meeting would 
have passed away like the summer dew or a morning cloud. 
But no, here is a call, and here are the members of Pittsburgh 
Presbytery, and the members of the Reformed Presbyterian 
Church, from one end of this land to the other, awakened by 
the vvar cry, "Rally for the defence of the church," and we 
are the traitors. What chance was there for justice when we 
were called to trial under the influence of such misrepresenta- 
tion and such prejudice? 

Then again, at the first meeting of Presbytery, held on 
October 4th, I was very much surprised at the memorials that 
came raining in to Presbytery from various congregations, 
charging upon certain ministers the greatest crime that it is 
possible for a minister to commit. These memorials were all 
pretty much of the same tenor and looked very much as if 
ihey were inspired by one or two master minds. Those 
memorials came into this Presbytery charging, and reiterat- 
ing the charges made in the call for the Elders' Convention. 
They simply tended to strengthen the prejudice that was al- 
ready awakened. When the Committee of Discipline, to 
which all these memorials were referred, came in with their 
report, here were six different charges not directly made 
against us, but fastened upon us by suspicion; and the names 
of the ministers who were under suspicion in that Presbytery 
were added to the report and we were asked to come forward 
and make such statements as we saw fit, in order that peace 
and harmony might be restored, and mutual confidence again 
reign in the church. 

]S T ow, Brethren, when I heard that offer I felt that the Com- 
mittee on Discipline in making that offer were acting sincerely, 
and I believe some of them were, and consequently I accepted 
the invitation in precisely the same spirit in which I thought 
it was offered. That was the first time that my fathers in the 
ministry had asked me anything about it. That was the first 
time that any of them had come to me and said, or even 
hinted, Were "you at the East End Meeting? Did you have 
anything to do with that Platform and with its principles? 
And I embraced the very first opportunity that my fathers in 
the ministry gave me to tell them all I knew. I kept nothing 
hack. 1 told them the whole truth, as God is my witness. 

And then what? Why, this very admission, this confession, 
that T made to my fathers when they asked me is put into 
the libel as one of the charges against me, — "Defending in 
open Court the principles of the East End Platform. ^ It is 
the only place I undertook to defend them. I said then, and 
I say now. that that Platform represents my honest convic- 
tions, but aside from the time when Presbytery demanded it I 
had never referred to the principles of that Platform. For 
obeying Presbytery, for doing precisely what my brethren 



70 



STENOGRAPHIC KEPORT. 



demanded that I should do, make a full, frank and open state- 
ment of my connection with that meeting and its principles r 
that we might see eye to e.ye, is one charge in the libel. 

Kev. IS1AH FARIS : If the brother would allow I would 
like to make a motion, as the time for devotional exercises has 
almost arrived, that we extend the time half an hour or an 
hour to hear the balance of his remarks. (The motion was 
seconded and carried.) 

Rev. E. M. MILLIGrAN : I shall try not to disabuse your 
favor. I pass on to the second point in my appeal, which is 
because at the various meetings of Presbytery held at Wilkins- 
burg at various times, my conduct was persistently misrepre- 
sented; also, interpretations I never intended were placed on 
my language, and my respectful request to have the Minutes 
corrected so that I might be truthfully represented were per- 
sistently denied. Now in regard to this, I will just simply 
refer to one instance, — it may anticipate what I have to say, 
but I will refer to it in this connection. As is well known by 
those who have carefully followed the evidence in Pittsburgh 
Presbytery, we were in a helpless minority, and it seemed to 
me that any time the Moderator wanted to make a speech he 
could decide the question his way. 

We have been blamed for not changing certain parts of the 
Minutes or not having them changed. Why. my Fathers and 
Brethren, half a dozen times I was on the floor of Pittsburgh 
Presbytery urging certain changes in the Minutes, and not 
once was the change effected. The Moderator wouldn't under- 
stand as I would understand, and consequently an appeal was 
taken to court, and the Moderator would be sustained. 

And then when we come to this court they want to know 
why we didn't change the Minute. In one instance after the 
meeting of the judiciary, and the meeting of Presbytery at 
which that committee had reported, I had made a certain 
statement, and it had gone out all through the church that the 
young men repudiated the basis of that agreement of the 
Judicial Committee. I arose in court and spoke for myself 
informing them that that was a mistake, that I never repudiated 
the basis of the Judicial Committee, but because of certain 
interpretations that had been placed upon the third item of 
that basis of the Commission, I had withdrawn my consent from 
the third item. I will touch that more folly when I refer to 
the Committee. I simply call attention to the fact at this time, 
that I called their attention to that. Are the Minutes changed? 
The Minutes still hold the item that we refused the basis of 
this Commission. They wouldn't allow me to go on record to 
the fact that I had only refused to stand by the third item of 
that basis after misinterpretations had been placed upon it. 
They voted me down, and so in other cases. You might as 
well try to walk through a stone wall as try to have anything 
changed on the Minutes of Pittsburgh Presbyter}', or even 



WEDNESDAY, JUNE 3. 



71 



have yourself represented according to your own intentions 
and according to your own explanations. There were abso- 
lutely no changes at all, 

There was one instance (I wouldn't refer to this now were 
it not for the fact that this case has gone on as it has to this 
present hour) in which a decision of the Moderator was 
objected, and when I, in order to settle the difficulty, arose 
and asked that the clerk be asked to read the paper in order 
that the Pittsburgh Presbytery might understand precisely 
what was before it, the Moderator, with a wave of his hand, 
announced that he had already decided that matter, and that 
we would waste no more time over such trifles. I then said, 
Mr. Moderator, I appeal from such an arbitrary decision. The 
Moderator informed me that was my privilege, and conse- 
quently I appealed. It was just at the noon recess. After dinner 
when I came in I had my appeal with me, and the clerk 
began reading the Minutes of the Pittsburgh Presbytery ; but 
how do the Minutes read? The Minutes represent me as 
taking exception to the decision of the Moderator. I at once 
arose to try and have those Minutes corrected, that I had not 
taken exception to the Moderator's decision at all, that I had 
simply taken exception to the arbitrary manner in which the 
Moderator had refused to grant me a respectful request. 
Gentlemen, the Clerk read the paper and it took us half an 
hour to settle that question, and it wasn't settled until other 
members of the court, among the conservatives, arose and 
said, "Mr. Moderator, let us have justice at least here," and 
took my side in that declaration, that that was what I did 
say; whereas, the Moderator was trying to insist that my 
interpretation now was contrary to his understanding, and 
unless the court decided otherwise the Minutes would stand 
as they were read. 

My dear Brethren, there is the spirit we have been con- 
tending against all through this trial, and we have not had an 
opportunity of fairly representing ourselves to the church. I 
know that it has been asserted on this floor that this court is 
largely conservative, and therefore the Presbytery will be 
sustaiued. But I believe that even among the conservatives, 
there are those who fear God and love justice and will deal 
mercifully with brethren, and consequently I am not so 
certain that Pittsburgh Presbytery, in all its action, will be 
sustaiued by the highest court of the Reformed Presbyterian 
Church, for which I have respect. 

Passing on to the third point — because members of the 
Judicial Commission, who voted to sustain the charge, evi- 
dently had no thought of my having pursued divisive courses, 
when at a meeting of the same Judicial Commission, they 
offered to me, and I accepted in good faith, a basis of settle- 
ment, and even formally received the right hand of fellow- 
ship in token of their restored confidence in me, which basis 



72 



STENOGRAPHIC REPORT. 



would have been a final and amicable settlement of the trouble 
liad not certain members of the Judicial Commission broken 
faith with me. pretending as members of the Judicial Com- 
mission to be entirely satisfied with the settlement, but as 
Presbyters introducing Resolutions calculated to continue the 
misrepresentations of me. by denouncing the East End Meet- 
ing and condemning the principles of the East End Platform. 
Now. this point summed up is this : The manifest insincerity 
on the part of some of the leaders, proving that my suspension 
was predetermined and was promoted by malice of self interest 
rather than the glory of God or the reclaiming one supposed 
to be taken in a fault. 

In addition to the facts that have been already presented by 
my brother who preceded me, I shall call attention to this, 
that, ail the facts known to Presbyter}-, either before or during 
the progress of the trial, were before that Judicial Commis- 
sion. They knew that we attended the meeting at the East 
End; they knew that we had helped formulate that Platform; 
the}' knew that we believed the principles therein stated to be 
scriptural. They knew all that. And noth withstanding these 
facts having been brought before them, there was this basis 
of the Judicial Commission prepared and offered to us 
individually. 

Now what does that basis say? It first requires that we 
disavow the East End Meeting as a bond of union within the 
Reformed Presbyterian Church, and as anything other than an 
explanation of individual opinion. It further requires us to 
enforce the existing laws of the church in regard to political 
dissent in our ministerial office as long as we are ministers of 
the Reformed Presbyterian Church. And then the third 
item of that basis was this, that we agree not to promulgate 
contrary opinions to the above while holding the office of 
minister. 

Now if I could read from the report of the chairman of 
that body I could show you this more clearly, — and, Mr. 
Moderator, my own conviction is to day. that it was a com- 
mission, but as Presbytery seems to accept to day that it is a 
committee, so I may sometimes speak of the Moderator 
instead of the chairman, because of this firm belief that is 
in my own mind. But. at this meeting, as the chairman of 
that committee plainly states in his report to Presbytery, 
after a full and free conference among the brethren, in regard 
to all these points, it was accepted. 

Now the only point in that basis of the judiciary to which 
I have ever taken exception and the only one that I take 
exception to to-day. is in the matter of the third item. What 
was t he conference that we had in regard to that? Why. we 
inquired in regard to that word ''propagate." The members 
of the Committee were even asked to define the meaning of 
the word "propagate," so that we could know precisely what 



WEDNESDAY, JUNE 3. 



73 



was the understanding that the Committee had of that word; 
and when it was explained so that we feared it might be 
understood in Presbytery, and in the world, as declaring that 
we would never again open our mouths on what we believed 
to be the truths of God's Word, whether or no, we at once 
took exception. Our exceptions were discussed back and 
forth in full and free conference, and it was understood in 
that Committee that our agreement not to propagate was in 
any disorderly way, — that we would not in any disorderly 
way propagate our opinions. The chairman of that Committee 
in answer to my own personal objections in regard to that, 
even called my attention to the fact that this Synod had, at 
its last meeting, appointed a committee, of which Professor 
D. B. Wilson was the chairman, to prepare a chapter to be 
added to our Testimony defining the orderly way of propagat- 
ing opinions; and of course it was explained to us that it 
was never meant to seal our mouths forever and Amen against 
declaring what we believe to be the truth of God's Word, but 
it was simply to keep us from ''in any disorderly way" 
disturbing the peace of the church. 

Now on that understanding I accepted that basis, — t*hat I 
would not propagate my opinion; that I would be silent in 
regard to what t believed to be the truth until Synod in its 
wisdom had defined the orderly way of propagating an 
opinion; and if that had been understood in Presbytery I 
would have stood on that basis still. But we come to the 
meeting of Presbytery in which this was brought up. And 
here the first thing that surprised us was the call for that 
meeting. I have noted here, and shall pass by, a point made 
by my brother in regard to that Committee being a commis- 
sion. However, I will say further, that I talked with a dozen 
members of Pittsburgh Presbytery before the next meeting, 
or after the meeting at which that body was called into being, 
and every one of them, so far as I have been able to under- 
stand, thought it was a commission. The elder from my 
congregation, who was not a member of this court, but who 
was appointed on that Committee, was inclined not- to go to it 
at all. He felt that there had been a great deal of trouble 
made, and he felt that it was useless to go; but my good 
brother, father Crozier, went up to see him and informed him 
that it was a commission. 

Kev. J. F. CROZIER : I never had the slightest idea that it 
was a commission; I understood it was a committee from first 
to last. 

Rev. E. M. MILLIGAN: I withdraw that statement then 
for one of the names; I have misunderstood the name. But 
I claim the privilege before this court adjourns of again refer- 
ring to this question and giving the name of the member of 
this court who did go to my elder, Mr. A. B. Copeland, and 
inform him that a commission was appointed; but for the 



74 



STENOGRAPHIC REPORT. 



present, as I have the wrong name, I withdraw the remark. 

Mr. TORRENS : Mr. Moderator, might I be allowed to ask a 
question. 

The MODERATOR: Yes, sir. 

Mr. TORRENS : You stated there was no elder at the 
Convention. 

Rev. E. M. MILLIGAN : No, I said no elder of mine signed 
the call. The opinion of members of the court, so far as I 
have spoken to any of them, was that it was a commission. 
That was the opinion that each one of the appellants took to 
that meeting, and we went there, and, as we supposed, settled 
the matter after a full and free conference. We learned after- 
wards that that Committee, after being constituted as a com- 
mission, had its attention called to the fact that it was merely 
a committee ; but though the members of that Committee may- 
have so understood it during all the proceedings, yet it was 
never brought out so that we young men understood it. And 
when, after we had accepted formally their basis of settle- 
ment, when they all went around and shook hands with us, I 
supposed that it was a final settlement of the trouble, and that 
I was going home to my congregation, and be enabled to 
proceed with the work that God had given me to do; and I 
was amazed, with my brethren, when 1 received a card calling 
a meeting of Pittsburgh Presbytery to take into consideration 
the basis of this Judicial Committee. I was amazed, I say, at 
such a thing as that. 

However, we came down to the meeting to see what it 
meant, and we said, "'Now w r e will listen very carefully to the 
reading of the Report of the Committee on Discipline, and 
notice its recommendations as they appear on the Minutes, 
and see if that does not call it a "commission. " We listened; 
it was all right. As it was there, it w r as a "Committee" and 
the result was the call for that meeting was all right; there 
was warrant for it according to the Minutes. 

The Committee then presented its report to Presbytery. 
While these reports w T ere being considered, one of the mem- 
bers of that Committee arose ; and Brethren, understand that 
the chairman of the Committee in his report says that, "After 
a full and frank conference it received the hearty approval of 
every member of that Committee, as well as the young men. 1 * 
Remember that. But, when we come to Presbytery, one man, 
who had given his hearty approval to that basis of settlement 
as being all that was necessary, and all that was just, and all 
that could rightfully be demanded of us, comes to Presbytery 
and makes the astonishing announcement that he is not acting 
now as a member of the Committee but as a Presbyter. So, 
as a Presbyter he was entirely dissatisfied w r ith the settlement, 
and as a member of the judiciary it met his hearty approval. 
This is one of the fine metaphysical distinctions that I do not 
pretend to analyze. I simply state the fact. As a result of 



WEDNESDAY, JUNE 3. 



75 



this resolutions were introduced into that court denouncing 
the East End Meeting as being held without due regard to 
the authority of Synod, and condemning the principles of the 
East End Platform as unscriptural, but representing that 
since we had agreed not to say anything more about it, all 
further proceedings be stayed. 

Now, Brethren, I maintain that that was breaking faith with 
us. And it was doing more, because explanations that were 
there made in that meeting of Presbytery represented that I 
had agreed for the sake of peace forever to seal up my mouth 
on matters that I believed to be the truth of God's Word, and 
that I never will be accused of doing. The result of all this 
was that strife and contention was at once introduced into 
that meeting because of these resolutions, because of this mis- 
representation; and it was at that time, after these resolutions 
had been entertained by the court, and received, that I arose 
and said, if we were obliged to be quiet, if we were obliged 
not to defend our own principles, it was not fair for any one 
who exacted that pledge of us, until Synod had defined the 
orderly way, to begin an attack upon our principles, after 
having pledged us to silence. That was breaking a truce. And 
if Presbytery proposed to condemn us for being insubordinate, 
then I demanded my right of defending my action. If any 
one was going to stand up in a court of Christ's house and 
condemn my opinions as unscriptural then I was going to 
exercise the liberty of a man, — the liberty of a Reformed 
Presbyterian, — to defend my opinion against every comer, let 
him be Presbyter, or let him be who he might; and hence 
with the understanding that that Committee put upon it, that 
my mouth was sealed, that I had agreed not to propagate my 
opinions at any time, and with this denunciation of my 
conduct, branding me as insubordinate, branding me as hold- 
ing heretical views, and that to go out among my brethren, 
was to continue the misrepresentations which, like a mill- 
stone, had been dragging me down, and I could not longer 
stand under, I arose in Presbytery at that time and said, in 
view of those resolutions having been introduced which would 
continue the misrepresentations of me, and in view of the 
interpetation put upon that third item of the platform, that 
therefore, here and now, I would give notice that I withdrew 
my consent from the third item of the Judical Committee's 
basis, and I never said anything else. 

But now, passing on, I must touch on my fourth point. 
There is no evidence that I have been guilty oi violating any 
law or principle of the church, or that I have influenced my 
church or others against such law or principle. The sole evi- 
dence relied upon by the prosecution was the statement made 
by myself and others at the request of Presbytery, in which we 
denied any divisive spirit, purpose, organization or act. 

There have been from the beginning to the end of this 



76 



STENOGRAPHIC REPORT. 



trouble two questions confounded, and it is because of the 
confounding of these two questions that many of my fathers 
and brethren of the Pittsburgh Presbytery have been led to 
sustain the charges against me of being a heinous and scan- 
dalous sinner. I am going to point out what they are. The 
one question is a question of opinion, a question involving 
principle. It is: Is a certain opinion right or wrong? That is 
-one question. The attempt has been made, since this court has 
been convened, to introduce some questions before this court, 
and to get this court to debate certain questions of principle, to 
see which way the majority lean. Brethren, suppose you took 
up these resolutions that have been introduced: suppose this 
question of principle was discussed, and the majority decided 
one way, would the minority be heinous and scandalous sinners? 
Would they be following divisive courses because they voted in 
the minority? Xow the question was persistently brought for- 
ward in Pittsburgh Presbytery, (and it was the question on 
which the prosecutors made their stand, from beginning to 
end), whether the opinions of our church, or practices of our 
church, were right or wrong? That is a question of principle, 
and I maintain that whether the court decided they were right 
or wrong, was not germane to the question or whether I was 
guilty of the sin and scandal of following a divisive course. 
The two things are not to be confounded: they are entirely 
separate and distinct, as wide apart as light and darkness. 
Yet. this is the question that was brought forward, and this 
is the question decided by Pittsburgh Presbytery, that our 
principles were right: but. deciding our principles were 
proper, then they sustained the libel that I have followed 
divisive courses, without bringing any evidence of any kind 
or description to show that I had done anything, by speech 
or by act. against the principles which they decided to be 
right. 

Xow I maintain that a member of this court (or any mem- 
ber of this court) may have the opinion that there is no 
special harm in interchange of pulpits. That may be his 
opinion. But we bring this question before this court to 
decide and this court decides that interchange of pulpits is 
right. Is he following a divisive course? But let him, in spite 
of the decision of the court, go and interchange pulpits; then 
he i- following a divisive course. Do you not see. Brethren, 
that it depends altogether on what you do with 3'our opinions, 
rather than what your opinion may be? 

Xow. I submit, that aside from the question whether the 
principles of the East End Platform be right or wrong, that 
it has nothing to do with the question of whether I have fol- 
lowed a divisive course. Every one of the principles of the 
East End Platform — every one of them may be out of harmony 
with our standards; every one of them may be proved to be 
unscriptural. and the time may come when my brethren may be 



WEDNESDAY, JUNE 3. 



77 



able to convince me of the same; but, in the meantime, I 
hold the opposite opinion, and I maintain that I can con- 
sistently hold that opinion, and not be divisive. If I were to 
begin and carry out the principles of that Platform in my 
congregation; or if I were to begin and preach these prin- 
ciples in my pulpit to make trouble in my congregation, then 
there is an act. Then I am handling those opinions. In that 
case I would be divisive, But, 1 never attempted to violate 
the law of the church. I have carried it out consistently since 
I have taken my ordination vows, and have never in any 
way, or in any place, cast reproach upon the principles or 
practices of the Reformed Presbyterian Church. Yet, all that 
the members of Pittsburgh Presbytery did was to decide that 
my opinion was wrong, and they sustained the libel against 
me, as guilty of the heinous and scandalous sin of following 
divisive courses. That is what the libel pretends to do ; it 
states, "-Here is an opinion put in a platform (and then quotes 
the second item of the East End Platform) which is contrary 
to our subordinate standards." Suppose it is contrary; does 
that prove the charge that I have followed a divisive course? 
And I wish to say right here, that at the trial when the live 
were tried the matter of the organization was hardly referred 
to at all, hardly touched upon. After the meeting I got a 
letter from one of the members who had voted to sustain the 
libel, calling my attention to the fact. He said tbat he could 
hardly believe that Pittsburgh Presbytery would suspend a 
man for holding a contrary opinion to a majority, and he 
thought the great matter had been the matter of an organiza- 
tion, and that that had not been touched upon at the time, 
and he hoped when Synod met we would try to bring that 
matter out, in order to see whether such an organization as 
the East End Meeting had been declared to be could be per- 
mitted in the church. That question was not touched upon 
in my trial at all. The question was, whether my opinion 
was right or wrong, and on that the question was submitted 
tc the court. And all these elders voted that the past position 
of the church was right, that it was the opinion of the church 
that it was right, and because I diverted from that in an 
opinion, they felt that the libel charging me with heinous and 
scandalous sin must be sustained ; consequently 1 have been 
found guilty and the sentence has been carried out. But, 
now, that is all I will say on that, and I pass to my fifth 
point. 

(The Moderator announced that the hour for recess had 
arrived, whereupon the court took a recess until two o'clock.) 

AFTERNOON SESSION. 

June 3rd, 1891. 

The MODERATOR.: At the hour of adjournment Rev. E. 
M. Milligan was addressing the Court in support of his com- 



78 



STENOGRAPHIC REPORT. 



plaint of, and appeal from the action of Pittsburgh Pres- 
hytery. Mr. Milligan will please continue his address. 

Kev. E. M. MILLIGAN": Fathers and Brethren, at the time 
of adjourning this morning I was just closing what I have to 
say on the fourth point of my appeal. I called attention to 
the fact that there was no evidence produced at the trial to 
prove me guilty of the heinous sin and scandal of pursuing a 
divisive course. I had showed that the main argument of 
the prosecution was in regard to a matter of opinion, whether 
certain opinions were right or wrong, whether my opinion 
agreed with the majority, and that the fact of showing the 
opinions put forth in the East End Platform were contrary to, 
and were opposed by, the opinion of the majority of the 
members of this church, had been accepted as proof positive 
of the fact that the libel was sustained. Now, if such evidence 
could have been produced, in all probability the place to se- 
cure it would have been in my own congregation, where for 
nearly two years I had labored as pastor. If I were guiltv of 
the crime laid at my door, certainly the place to gather up 
evidence of that crime would be where my work has been 
done. 

During the trial we called the attention of Presbytery to the 
fact that there was no trouble whatever in our congregations. 
As has already been brought to your notice, the memorials 
that were presented to this Presbytery were not from the 
congregations of the ministers who have been suspended. 
Not in a single instance was there a charge against any of the 
young men of having in anywise violated the law or the prac- 
tice of the church, or of preaching sentiments contrary to the 
Declaration and Testimony of the Reformed Presbyterian 
church. The only apparent exception to that statement is the 
matter of the New Alexandria congregation, and there, as has 
been stated, the objection was simply as to the position that 
their pastor had taken on the floor of Synod in regard to the 
union question. 

In my congregation there was perfect peace and harmony. 
We were working together, not only as standing in the same 
relation to each other in the church of Christ, but socially 
there was no trouble. I had not an enemy in the congrega- 
tion to my knowledge; and I may say that even to-day, 
though the congregation is sadly divided and in a deplorable 
condition, I feel that I can safely say, that I have not an 
enemy in Parnassus. I have not a member of my congrega- 
tion who would raise a finger against me, or will stand in this 
court, or before this court, and say that in any way I have 
done anything that has brought reproach upon the Covenan- 
ter church, or upon her principles. 

But so far from causing any trouble in my church, I have 
sought by maintaining silence during all these months, while 
others, not only in this Presbytery but at least in one instance 



WEDNESDAY, JUNE 3. 



79 



from another Presbytery, have been writing into my congre- 
gation, to various families, letters calculated to prejudice 
them against me and to stir up strife, and have succeeded ; yet 
in all I have maintained a silence ; I have not. either socially 
or in the pulpit, where I have exhorted on God's day, refer- 
red to this trouble. And whatever strife and division in Par- 
nassus congregation there has been ; whatever has been the 
cause of this strife and division. I can say here now, that I 
wash my hands Qf it all. If my congregation is divided, as it 
is to-day. let the responsibility lie at the door of those who 
have in underhand ways come into my field and divided my 
friends against me. and in thus dividing friends and brothers 
have caused what I fear is the destruction of that congrega- 
tion. 

Furthermore, so far as evidence was concerned, all that this 
Presbytery knew of any divisive course (positively. I mean) 
was what they learned from the men they suspended. That 
is, all the evidence that was before the court or that they 
sought to gather: all they know to-day in regard to it. they 
learned from ourselves. And while they accepted our word 
as true in regard to our having attended the East End Meet- 
ing and helped in formulating the Platform, why do they not. 
if they could believe us in that matter, believe us when we tell 
them the purpose of that East End Meeting; when we denied 
any divisive intention, when we told them what our purpose 
was, merely to correct misrepresentations, rather than as had 
been charged upon us, to divide the church, to lead the 
church into defection from her sworn allegiance to Christ? 

Fathers and Brethren, if our word was to be accepted as true 
when we admitted having attended this Meeting, on what 
ground could they set our testimony to one side when we 
denied the intentions that were fastened upon us. and the 
charges that were so freely scattered over the church? These 
charges that have been made have in no instance been sub- 
stantiated. They are the mere assertions of men who speak 
without guarding well their expressions and without looking- 
for the proof of the truth of that which they assert. 

I now pass to the fifth point in my appeal, which is as fol- 
lows : Because the specification ot the libel does not sustain 
the charge of '-pursuing divisive courses.' 1 To be divisive 
the course must be against the solemnly recognized and 
adopted doctrine and order of the Reformed Presbyterian 
Church. The Covenant of 1871, Sec. 2. declares this doctrine 
and order to be contained in "the Bible, the Confession and 
Catechisms, the Testimony, the Westminster form of govern- 
ment and directory for worship.*" To all these I cheerfully 
assent, and the second article of the East End Platform quoted 
in the specification as divisive, formally recognizes the pro- 
priety of binding members to these. The article only dis- 
claims "the binding to our explanation," and this. only as a 



so 



STENOGRAPHIC REPORT. 



term of communion, and not at all in the way of instruction 
and testimony bearing. The Platform rejects only private and 
personal views of pastors, which are often widely varied, in 
explaining the terms ; and the decisions of Synod which have 
never been solemnly adopted as constitutional law. which are 
often contradictory, and from which many dissent as contrary 
to the standards. This is shown in such acts of "Synod, as 
Synod's decision on the War queslion, the Jury question and 
voting on Amendments. Such acts of Synod are at best honest 
attempts to solve difficult questions of doctrine and order, and 
to make them binding as terms of communion would be build- 
ing on shifting sands. 

For the first time in our history has any one been tried and 
suspended for saying that such decisions are not binding as an 
article of faith, and to make them so is directly contrary to 
our solemnly recognized and adopted doctrine and order. 
(Confession of Faith, chap. 31, sec. 4; First term of commu- 
nion; Declaration and Testimony, chap. 3, sec. 4. error G; 
chap. 20, sec. 2, error 4 and 5; Covenant of 1871, sec. 4; and 
1st Corinthians, 2:5.) 

I give these references, and for the sake of brevity. I will do 
no more than to refer to them. If brethren will only take the 
trouble to refer to the reference to God's Word, the reference 
to our Testimony or to the Confession of Faith, they will find 
that, in every one of these instances I have recited, the Testi- 
mony of our church stands fair and square against any Pope, 
or any Council, or any Synod of the house of God, making 
their mere decisions binding upon the church. That is the 
pith of all the references that have been quoted along the line 
of God's Word, first Corinthians. 2nd chapter, fifth verse, 
which is, '-That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of 
men but in the power of God;'' and on that scriptural founda- 
tion is built the Testimony and Terms of Communion of the 
Reformed Presbyterian Church. 

]STow I maintain by this fifth point that the libel presented 
to me, preferred by Pittsburgh Presbytery, is not relevant to 
censure, and for various reasons. There is not one charge^ 
nor all the charges together, that could be considered censur- 
able. I do not need to wait to read the libel through, but I 
can call attention to the different counts in that libel, which 
will serve the same purpose. The libel first calls attention ta 
the fact that following divisive courses is a heinous and scan- 
dalous sin. contrary to God's Word and to the profession of 
the Reformed Presbyterian Church founded thereon. Then 
it goes on to specify certain acts : 1. That I attended a meet- 
ing at the East End; 2. That 1 formulated a platform of 
principles, some of which were at variance with the Testimony 
of the Reformed Presbyterian Church; 3. That that platform 
of principles was circulated; 4. That I asserted my ad- 
herence to the platform and principles at a meeting of Pitts- 



WEDNESDAY . JUNE 3. 



si 



burgh Presbytery, held on October 4th. 1S90. These are the 
four charges that are laid down in that libel to sustain the 
charge of my being guilt}" of the heinous and scandalous sin 
of pursuing a divisive course. 

Wow, Brethren. I submit to you. which one of those charges 
constituted that crime? Is it attending a meeting at the East 
End? Is it adopting a platform of principles. "in which an 
opinion may be expressed contrary to some of the doctrine? of 
the Keformed Presbyterian Church? Is it sending that plat- 
form of principles out with the statement that it is to correct 
the misrepresentation that is being made of our position? Is 
it. when asked by a court of Christ's house to say whether or 
not we did thus and so. to stand up ami in obedience to that 
court answer the question? These are the counts. Which one 
of the three, or take it all together, constitutes a crime, no less 
heinous and scandalous than following divisive course-? Yet, 
there is not another count specified in that libel, not another 
one. 

I do not care. Brethren, whether you take one or two of 
those charges: if that makes the libel relevant to censure. E 
maintain that there is not a member of this honorable body 
that could not. on precisely the same grounds, be proved 
guilty of precisely the same crime. It might be that the case 
would be different. Instead of attending a meeting at East 
End the meeting might have been in >ome church in Alle- 
gheny? Or instead of our opinions expressed in the East End 
Platform it might be other opinions that are just as much at 
variance with the doctrine and order of the Reformed Pres- 
byterian Church : but. in any case. I maintain that all this 
constitutes nothing more than a difference of opinion, and 
does not establish the crime of following a divisive course- 
But, the charges specified in the libel do not establish the 
crime of following a divisive course because they are not 
contrary to the established order. The point that the libel 
specially picks out is the second plank of the East End Plat- 
form. I like very much what the brother who preceded me 
said in regard to reading a thing over two or three times in 
order to understand exactly what it means : and if some of the 
brethren have only read that second plank over once careless- 
ly, or if they never read it over at all. but have simply taken 
it for granted, that it is a very wrong plank. I wish, before 
they come to give their decision, they would secure that 
second plank and read it over very carefully. The first plank 
of that platform declared our belief in the most advanced 
testimony in behalf of truth, but that the terms of communion 
should be limited to faith in Christ and obedience to his re- 
vealed will. Now. as has veiy well been said, faith in Christ 
and obedience to his revealed Mill are very general expres- 
sions. You might make almost anything out of those two 
expressions. We recognized that at the East End Meeting, 



£2 STENOGRAPHIC REPORT. 

and hence, to avoid any possible mistake, to prevent the pos- 
sibility of being charged with views and opinions which we 
never held, we added the second plank of that platform, 
which explains the understanding that those who attended 
the East End Meeting have of "credible evidence of faith in 
Christ and obedience to his revealed will." What is this ex- 
planation? It is, that those who accept the Testimony and 
Terms of Communion of the Reformed Presbyterian Church 
should be admitted to the Church as members "without 
binding them to our explanation in the matter of political 
dissent or in other questions." Where, then, is there any- 
thing in that plank that is contrary to the established order 
of the Reformed Presbyterian Church? I know the phrase 
"or in other questions" has been caught up and made a great 
deal of, and suggestions have been thrown out that we would 
admit to church membership the vilest kind of men, simply 
on their statement that they believed in Christ and professed 
obedience to his revealed will. Ay, Brethren, back behind 
that second plank is the point, "on their acceptance of the 
Reformed Presbyterian Testimony and Terms of Commun- 
ion;" and I maintain that any man who will accept the 
scriptural doctrines and order that are plainly stated in the 
Reformed Presbyterian Testimony and her Terms of Com- 
munion is not a man who could belong to the Mafia of New 
Orleans, is not a man who could open a grog shop, is not a 
man who could be blasphemous. If this be not true, then I 
say, the sooner the Reformed Presbyterian Testimony be sunk 
to the bottom of the sea the better it will be for the 
good name of our church. We maintain that the Reformed 
Presbyterian Testimony and the Covenant we have sworn 
present the scriptural position of the Church. We maintain, 
and it is the brag and the glory of Reformed Presbyterians, 
that that Testimony is the most advanced Testimony that can 
be made for Jesus Christ. 

Now I ask if when we come forward and say we are ready 
to admit people to the church who are ready to accept our 
Testimony and our Terms of Communion, if that opens wide 
the door for the blasphemer, for the drunkard, and for the vile 
debauchee? We bind them then to accept our Testimony and 
Terms of Communion as founded upon the Scriptures, 
"without binding them to our explanation in the matter of 
political dissent." What is our explanation in the matter of 
political dissent? Well, I could select two or three men in this 
court and ask them to give their explanation of the matter of 
political dissent, and what would it be? Is there any unity to 
day in the church on this question? Is there any agreement, 
any harmony, as to what our explanation of the matter of 
political dissent is? I am a member in good and regular 
standing in one congregation, and I might, in God's provi- 
dence, move into another field and seek union in another 



WEDNESDAY, JUNE 3. 



83 



•congregation. Have I merely to accept our Testimony and 
Terms of Communion without being bound to the explanation 
of that session in. the matter of political dissent? If accepting 
the Testimony and Terms of Communion is not enough to 
admit me to membership I might be a member in good and 
regular standing in one particular denomination and be 
denied admission into another part of the same church, simply 
because I cannot at the same time accept two explanations of 
political dissent that are as far apart as heaven and earth. 

And now, what are the other questions? There is not a 
year, there is not a meeting of this Synod that questions of 
one kind and another do not come up for settlement. And 
right at this point, I maintain that there is and must be 
recognized by every man of judgment, a wide difference 
between the truth of God's Word, between the principles 
that have been engrafted on the Book of books and given to 
his church for their guidance and direction, and the opinions 
which God's people may have in regard to certain parts of 
that Word. And questions of this kind are coming every year 
in this Synod for settlement. I maintain they are simply 
human opinions. Where there is the principle stated in God's 
Word, no one disbelieves it, no one discredits it. For instance, 
the church may declare, and does declare, that in the begin- 
ning God created the heaven and the earth. The book of 
Genesis teaches us that in six days this world was made, and 
God rested on the seventh day. There is divine truth. But, 
now, the question at once comes up in regard to those days, 
in regard to the understanding of the Hebrew word that 
stands for clay. Is it a day of twenty-four hours? Is it a 
period? Can you decide that from God's Word? Can you turn 
to God's Word and say from the book of inspiration that those 
were six days of twenty-four hours each? Or, can you main- 
tain from God's Word that they are six periods of indefinite 
length of time? How far have you got to go? You have got to 
go into the philosophy of that word. You have got to go to the 
scientists of our age to determine this' question. Consequent- 
ly, I maintain that since the proof as to whether the day there 
is a day of twenty-four hours, or a day that will include an 
indefinite period of time, is to be determined only on human 
proof, human argument and so on ; therefore I should not be 
bound to accept it, even though the majority of this Synod 
would decide unhesitatingly that the day mentioned in 
Genesis was a day of indefinite period. If there were any in this 
place who maintained that it was six days of twenty-four 
hours each (and I know there are such in the church and 
more than one), and a godly old father should insist that 
these days were days as he understood them, of twenty-four 
hours, I would not bind that man to Synod's explanation. I 
would not say to that man you must belieye my explanation 
or Synod's explanation, that the day mentioned in t lie Bib I 



84 



STENOGRAPHIC REPORT. 



is a period and not a day limited to twenty-four hours. But T 
if anybody should declare that God did not create the heavens 
and the earth in six days, then I would say that that man was 
denying the truth of God's Word, divine truth, and as such 
had no right or place in the church of God. 

Now there are a great many things, a great many matters,, 
of precisely that same character. I might illustrate in a great 
many different ways, bringing up matters that are familiar to 
every one in this church : matters ihat are history in the 
Reformed Presbyterian Church, and I think with very little 
effort I could draw a very clear line of distinction between 
God's truth and the mere opinions of men however honest 
they might be. Hence when we say in that Platform that 
we are in favor of binding applicants to the Testimony and 
Terms of Communion of the Reformed Presbyterian Church 
without binding them to our explanation in the matter of 
political dissent or in other questions, we recognize to-day 
that our explanation of the matter of political dissent is a 
mere human opinion ; and hence there are in this court, repre- 
sented here to-day, godly old fathers in the ministry, who are 
on both sides of this question, and it must be true that there 
is a difference of opinion that is justifiable in the church. 
And I maintain that if the majority on one side should seek 
to bind the minority to their explanation in the matter of 
political dissent, it would divide the church. And why? 
Simply because the explanation is a human opinion. Simply 
teecause they cannot go to God's Word to demonstrate their 
philosophy, either on the one side or on the other. It cannot 
be done. If they could go to God's Word there is not a 
Covenanter in this body that would not bow to the infaliible 
Word of God. But, when an opinion rests on philosophy,, 
rests on illustration and deductions drawn from the brain of 
man, however clear and convincing they may be to that man, 
they are to be used, as the preface to our Testimony declares, 
in testimony bearing; they are to be used in instructing 
others in the matter of the truth and leading them to our 
position; but since they are founded upon human arguments 
and human history, they are not to be made binding upon the 
conscience of the dissenter. Now that is all we mean by that 
second plank in the East End Platform. Of course if we mean, 
what others say we mean, if we mean what others have 
explained that we mean, then I say that we are certainly 
guilty of all the odium that has been heaped upon us during 
these months of trial and of bitter experience. But I maintain 
that until our words have been proved unreliable, until we 
have been shown to be men of such immoral character that 
our words and acts have no weight in the community or in a 
court of Christ's house, when we put forth a document and 
say we understand by that document thus and so, that ought 
to be accepted as what we understand and mean rather than 



WEDNESDAY, JUNE 3. 



85 



the explanation that others may put on it and brand upon us, 
which we repudiate as utterly false and without foundation. 

Now I pass on to my sixth point, which is : Because the 
reference to the Book of Discipline, with which the libel 
avers that our Platf rm is at variance, does not require that 
candidates for membership shall accept either the explanation 
of ministers or Synod, but it specifically makes the approval 
of the Declaration and Testimony, of the Terms of Commun- 
ion and documents to which they refer, and of the Bible plan 
of salvation, to be the test of admission. The reference given 
in the libel is, B ok of Discipline, pages 63 and 64, also the 
Testimony quoted, chapter 22, names only "the explicit 
Terms of Communion to which every member gives his as- 
sent ;" and it expressly excludes from such Terms every thing 
but what '-is divine truth," and allows for differences of 
opinion on all questions not divinely determined. The other 
chapters named, "twenty-ninth, thirtieth and thirty-third," 
contain only such divine truth, all of which your appellant 
accepts, and nothing in any of these chapters hints at the 
binding force of auy mere human opiniou or explanation. 

You will mark that we are charged with 'a heinous sin and 
scandal, contrary to the Word of God and to the profession of 
the Reformed Presbyterian Testimony founded thereon." 
Hence, a heinous and scandalous sin. or the following of a 
divisive course, must be against the Word of God and the 
Reformed Presbyterian Testimony founded thereon. Now, if 
I had been brought to trial for lying, they would not only 
have had the general heading of a libel, as I have read, — 
4 'Whereas lying is a heinous and scandalous sin contrary &c. ; 
yet true it is, you have been found guilty thereof, in that you 
have done thus and so, contrary to such a chapter in our 
Testimony and such a place in God's Word.""' There would 
have to be reference made to the breach in the body of the 
libel. 

These brethren who preferred the libel against me, named 
the second article in that Platform, to which I have already 
alluded, as being contrary to God's Word and the Testimony 
of the Reformed Presbyterian Church founded thereon. Just 
let us take it up verse by verse and find out what it is that 
is contrary to God's Word and to the profession of the 
Reformed Presbyterian Church founded thereon. Is it the 
first statement, that we are in favor of admitting persons to 
the church on their acceptance of our Testimony and Terms 
of Communion? Is that contrary to the Testimony of the Re- 
formed Presbyterian Church? As you all know it is not. 
Then, the difficulty must be in the next statemant, — "without 
binding them to our explanation." Now I would like some 
one to quote God's Word to me that shows that the explana- 
tions of men, that the explanations of Synods, or Councils 
since the apostles' time, which may err, and of which many 



86 



STENOGRAPHIC REPORT. 



have erred, should be made a term of communion, should be 
made binding upon the conscience. If they cannot show me 
God's Word, then, I submit, they ought to move an overture 
that the chapter in the Confession of Faith which asserts the 
contrary ought to be changed. It is merely a question of ex- 
planation that they declare is at variance with the Bible and 
the Testimony of the Reformed Presbyterian Church. 

But, I see around me here too many fathers and brethren, 
whom I love and whom I know, that have more than once 
dissented from and refused to accept the explanation of Synod 
in regard to certain matters, and that to-day would not be 
bound by Synod's explanation in certain matters. And I 
know that if thev thought in doing so they were going con- 
trary to God's Word and the Testimony of the Reformed 
Presbyterian Church, they would very quickly submit. They 
are the sons of men whom God used as instruments to bring 
about the reformation to come out of the Church that would 
bind her children and keep them in darkness and ignorance 
and stifle the minds that God had given them that would 
enable them to think for themselves. And these men do think 
for themselves; and with due submission to the courts of 
God's house that are over them in the Lord, they are willing 
to be helped by those as brethren, but they are not willing that 
any court should, as a court, dictate to them what they shall 
accept and what they shall refuse. But, as they expect to 
answer at the bar of Divine Justice, not for what Synod may 
have believed, but for what they have believed, so as true Re- 
formed Presbyterians they dissent whenever the majority of 
Synod declares a certain thing to be a duty which they do not 
believe to be a duty. 

Now. I might take up the reference that is made to the Book 
of Discipline, pages 63 and 64, and ask any member of this 
court to find where in the Book of Discipline, in the references- 
that are made in our libel, you will find the requirement to 
bind members to our explanation. If you can't find it, then 
I maintain that it is not contrary to that book; if the book is 
silent on that question it cannot be contrary to that book to 
assert it. That book simply binds members precisely to what 
that second plank of the Platform binds them, — everything in 
the Testimony and in the Terms of Communion, the whole 
gospel plan of salvation as it is revealed in our Testimony and 
Terms of Communion. I do not know of one word in that 
book that would bind man, woman or child to an explanation 
either of a pastor or of Synod. But then they go on and they 
specify certain chapters in the Reformed Presbyterian Testi- 
mony, chapters 29. 30 and 33. Does not that second plank in 
the Platform bind them to the Reformed Presbyterian Testi- 
mony and Terms of Communion? Have we in that Platform 
made an exception of the 29th, 30th and 33rd chapters of the 
Reformed Presbyterian Testimony. If that plank read that 



WEDNESDAY, JUNE 3. 



87 



we believed in admitting members on their acceptance of our 
Testimony excepting the 29th, 30th and 33rd chapters, and the 
Terms of Communion, then the plank would be contrary to 
the established order of the Eeformed Presbyterian Church. 
Then, in omitting the important truths that are set forth in 
those three chapters we would be departing from a part of the 
Testimony. But we did not purpose to do it. There is not one 
of the principles contained in any of those chapters that is not 
dear to the heart of every man who to-day stands before you 
pleading his appeal from the decision of Pittsburgh Presby- 
tery. There is not a single thing in the Testimony of the Re- 
formed Presbyterian Church or in the Terms of Communion 
or in her Covenant, that I wish to take exception to. — not a 
single thing: and I do not wish to admit any one into the Ee- 
formed Presbyterian Church on any lower plane than their 
acceptance of every truth stated in our Testimony and Terms 
of Communion. Now if they can turn to chapter 29, 30 or 33, 
and show me the requirements that bind to their explanation, 
then I maintain again, the case is theirs. I maintain again, 
that in showing that they show that we have departed from 
the teachings of our Testimony, that we have broken our 
ordination vows in doing so; but you cannot find it in any of 
those chapters. It may be for this Synod to place it there 
That is another thing ; that is another question altogether^ 
We are not talking about what this Synod may do. We are* 
not speaking of what this Synod ought to do: the question is' r 
what has the Synod done? And I maintain that to this day 
Synod has never placed in her Testimony or Terms of Com- 
munion a human explanation and required that as a term of 
communion in the Reformed Presbyterian Church. 

I would like to take up this chapter separately and analyze 
it, but for the sake of time I will pass that by and read my 
seventh reason for appeal and complaint. Because the trial 
was such as to discredit Covenanter Presbyterianism. Settle- 
ments were proposed which required the acceptance of gag 
law and the renouncing of liberty of conscience and free dis- 
cussion of human opinion. The trial was further rendered a 
burlesque, and the possibility of procuring a verdict in accord- 
ance with the law and evidence was made impossible by cer- 
tain prominent members of the Court, during our defence, ab- 
senting themselves from the Court for an hour or more ; by 
others contemptuously reading their newspapers; by others^ 
sleeping; by others publicly and privately declaring their 
intentions to suspend us before the trial began, and especially 
the fact that some based their reason for sustaining the charge 
on evidence that had not been before the Court, shows con- 
clusively that our condemnation was determined beforehand. 

And now. Fathers and Brethren, this to me is the saddest 
point in my complaint and appeal, and I would to God 
I could leave it out and not bring it before this Court. Never- 



38 



STENOGRAPHIC REPORT. 



Sheless, it is a fact that those who are over us in the Lord, and 
who assembled, and in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and 
t>y his authority constituted themselves into a court of Christ's 
house to adjudicate a case in which the character of believing 
ministers of the gospel was involved, had so little regard for 
their responsibility to Christ, that these things that I specify 
were positively true during the meeting of Pittsburgh Pres- 
hj'tery. 

I confess there may have been cause for the brethren to be 
tired, and perhaps it is true that some of the young men were 
to blame by the length of their arguments. But, dear Fathers 
and Brethren, think a moment! Here were our characters in- 
volved ! If it had been merely a question as to whether our 
opinions were right or wrong, that might have been settled. 
If it were simply whether we had a view that coincided more 
with the opinions of another church than it did with the 
opinions of our own beloved church, that is another question, 
and we might have discussed that at less length and been 
more open to the statements that were made that we were 
trying to convince them of an error of judgment. 

But, my dear Fathers, this was not the case at all. We were 
there defending ourselves against a heinous and scandalous 
sin. We were there defending ourselves against the widely 
circulated charges that we were covenant breakers ; that we 
were seeking to lead our church into defection, and that we 
were seeking to bring dishonor upon our God and upon our 
King. Here were the charges that were brought before us. 
Henne, I submit, that even though some of us may have 
wearied the court with our much speaking, — yet I submit that 
there was good cause. When a man is standing for his char- 
acter, which is dearer to him than life, is there any wonder 
that he may plead long and earnestly with those who are to 
vote on and decide his case. Therefore, though the long 
speeches that were made by some of the defendants wearied 
the brethren and the court, they should have taken into con- 
sideration the importance of the case. They should have con- 
sidered what we had at stake, and had enough interest in us 
to hear what we had to say. And yet, notwithstanding all 
the weight of the matters that were to be decided by that 
court, several individuals sitting around me nudged me, and 
pointed to one and to another, — "Is it possible that that 
person is asleep ?" Well, I was not the person, but I can say 
that they had every indication of being asleep, and I could 
prove it by half a dozen witnesses, and will if necessary ; and 
I will mention names if necessary, though I far prefer not to; 
and I will bring witnesses forward to testify that members of 
Pittsburgh Presbytery during the argument of certain individu- 
als had their eyes closed, their heads bobbing from one side 
to another, and then fall back, and straighten tip quick. And 
this during trial ! 



WEDNESDAY. JUNE 3. 



And then I will maintain, also, that while the argument of 
a certain person was going on. other members of Pitts- 
burgh Presbytery sat reading their newspapers. The sofa 
was in the pulpit and a prominent member of Pittsburgh 
Presbytery went up and stretched out on the sofa and lay 
reading his newspaper while the argument was being pre- 
sented to the court. Then other members of the court got up. 
went down the aisle, and were out for some time, and then 
would come back and take their places right in the midst of 
the argument for defence, when our characters were at stake! 
And they came back and voted to sustain the libels as rele- 
vant. 

I maintain. Fathers and Brethren, when such things as 
these were going on in Pittsburgh Presbytery, is it any wonder 
that a sentence has been pronounced that has shocked the 
Christian world, and that to-day holds the Reformed Presby- 
terian Church up to the contempt of Christian brethren. 
What I maintain is. if they had really felt the responsibility 
that was resting upon them, if they had been wakeful, if they 
had been watching, if they had been weighing carefully the 
case as it progressed before them, they might have felt it 
necessary to condemn our opinions as being contrary to the 
doctrines of the church, yet. when it came to sustaining a 
libel against us charging us with the heinous and scandalous 
sin of pursuing a divisive course, the Presbytery would have 
voted that down. But no ! The Presbytery sustained the 
libel, and the result is we are here to-day pleading with you, 
Fathers and Brethren, for that justice which we did not re - 
ceive at the hands of Presbytery. I also refer, in this con- 
nection, to the fact that there were many, in giving their 
decision, rested it on evidence that was not before the court. 
I could name a good old father who is in this Court to-day, 
and I love him', and he is loved as far as he is known in the 
Pittsburgh Presbytery, and has a wide circle of friends out- 
side. The members of Presbytery were allowed two minutes 
each in which to explain their votes, and when he was called 
upon for his vote he began to explain that when he was up in 
the country somebody had sent him a paper from which he 
learned that some ministers of the Reformed Presbyterian 
Church had organized a secret society in the church, and of 
course he would sustain the libel. Of course he would sustain 
the libel, because these ministers had formed a secret society 
in the Reformed Presbyterian Church. 

Xow. Brethren, the nuestion whether we had formed a 
secret society had never been mentioned in that trial, and I 
think that those who know the young men who are suspended 
know that they are not members of any secret society. I 
think if any one will go to Parnassus congregation, where I 
have preached for nearly two years past, they will learn 
that on more than one occasion I have lifted up my voice 



90 



STENOGRAPHIC REPORT. 



against these abominations of the earth, and I do not think, 
as a Keformed Covenanter minister I would stoop to entering 
a society of that kind. But this good old father was in earn- 
est, and he was just as sincere and honest as could he when 
he rendered his decision. But. nevertheless, the decision to 
sustain the libel was on a matter that had never been before 
the court ; but he felt we were terrible sinners if we would 
organize a secret society in this church, and of course he 
would sustain the libel. So, I might refer to other circum- 
stances that were brought out in these two minute speeches. 
Some of them were intensely interesting, though they had 
nothing to do with the libel on which we were being tried. 

Now I will take up the last point in my complaint and 
appeal, viz., the point in regard to the sentence inflicted upon 
us : Because the sentence of suspension was illegally inflicted 
and unduly severe. Our own Book is silent, but the United 
Presbyterian Book, article 111, section 2. and the Presbyterian 
Book, chapter 7, section 3, paragraph 15, expressly says : 
'•The necessary operation of an appeal is to suspend all fur- 
ther proceedings on the ground of the sentence appealed 
from." My appeal was taken from the sentence of the court 
that the libel was proved, yet, -on the ground of that sent- 
ence'* so appealed from, Presbytery proceeded to suspend me. 
Besides, this suspension was inflicted, not for any immorality 
or sin alleged against me, nor for the denial of any doctrine 
or practice of the standards, nor for any violation of the law 
or practice of the church in the matter 'of political dissent, but 
simply for the utterance of the East End Platform and the 
private opinion expressed in it, which I had agreed both be- 
fore and in the trial not to maintain in any disorderly way. 
Now this point briefly summed up is : that the suspension was 
illegal and severe beyond precedent. Just to illustrate this 
case, I say that our own Book is silent on the matter. Some 
think that the Book of Discipline in treating of cases of this 
kind does touch on cases of this very matter"when it says, that 
when an appeal is taken from an inferior to a superior court 
the case is removed at that point from the court. But these 
other Books I have referred to are very specinc on the subject, 
and positively assert that the necessary operation of an appeal 
is to suspend all further proceedings on the ground of the 
sentence appealed from. 

Now just as a mere matter of common sense, let us look at 
this case for the present. Supposing a man were on trial for 
murder. The court finds him guilty. He at once takes an 
appeal to a superior court. Notwithstanding his appeal taken 
to the superior court, the judge proceeds to pronounce sen- 
tence, declares the finding of that court is that the man is 
guilty of murder, and the court says that he shall be hanged 
on such a day by the neck till dead. The man is duly hung. 
Two weeks afterwards his case comes up on appeal in the su- 



WEDNESDAY, JUNE 3. 



91 



preme court, and the decision of the lower court is reversed ; 
hut the man has not very much interest in that decision. 

In the very nature of the case an appeal from an inferior to 
a superior must in justice suspend the sentence being inflicted 
upon him. The question has been referred to in the case of a 
civil suit, where a person convicted in an inferior court and 
appealed to a higher court is either imprisoned or must give 
bail. That is true. But let us not confound things which 
differ. He is not imprisoned or required to give bail as a 
matter of penalty, as a matter of punishment, because he has 
been found guilty, but he is either imprisoned or has to give 
bail so as to insure that he will meet his appeal in the sup- 
erior court. That is all there is in that. There is no penalty 
inflicted upon a man by the inferior court when he appeals 
to the higher court. I maintain that when I took my appeal 
from the decision of Pittsburgh Presbytery, sustaining the 
libel as relevant, at that very point Pittsburgh Presbytery was 
suspended from further action. That very point, in the name 
of justice, and in the name of common sense, Pittsburgh Pres- 
bytery dared not go beyond without trespassing on rights, — 
God-given rights ; and therefore when they suspended us in 
the name of the Lord Jesus Christ after we had appealed to 
this court, they acted illegally ; they acted without warrant. 

But, then, I also say that it is unduly severe. Now, Fathers 
and Brethren, think for a moment. Supposing this court de- 
cides that the East End Meeting was a mistake; supposing 
this court decides that the opinions expressed in the East End 
Platform are every one of them wrong. Ay, let us put it 
stronger than that : Supposing irrespective of what this court 
may decide, that the t ast End Meeting be wrong, and the 
principles stated in the East End Platform contrary to Script- 
ure. Yet, it was a mistake of judgment. The pastoral letter 
declares that we were not guilty of immorality. We had not 
done anything of a scandalous nature. We had not drawn 
reproach upon the church of Christ, nor put a stumbling block 
in the way of our brethren. In a case of that kind would not 
some lighter sentence have been all that justice could demand, 
especially, when we at different times had declared that in no 
disorderly way would we maintain our opinion? Why, before 
the trial began, vve came forward to Pittsburgh Presbytery and 
submitted to them a paper signed by every one of us in which 
vve agreed that we would not "propagate our opinions in any 
disorderly manner.' ' We were ready to meet them every 
time, and do just what was right; but they said, "you must 
express repentance for that Meeting.'" Well, we went this 
far; we said that we regretted, that we were sorry for holding 
the East End Meeting; but we were not sorry in the sense 
that Pittsburgh Presbytery demanded we should be sorry. 
More than once, ay, every man that stood before Pittsburgh 
Presbytery, said they were sorry they held the East End 



92 



STENOGRAPHIC REPORT. 



Meeting, and that they were sorry the East End Platform had 
been put forth. But on what ground were they sorry? Be- 
cause of the interpretations that had been put upon that Plat- 
form. Because of the interpretations that were pinned to that 
Meeting, and that were being scattered over the Church, and 
was causing trouble in the Church. But, we all maintained 
we were not, and we did not feel, sorry for that Meeting in 
the sense that we felt the Meeting was absolutely wrong. We 
could not feel sorry for putting forth a platform of principles, 
which, in our hearts, we honestly believed to be the truth. 
We could not express sorrow in that sense, and that was the 
only sense in which Pittsburgh Presbytery would have us ex- 
press sorrow. 

But it was asserted again and again that so far as having 
held that Meeting we were sorry for it, and that perhaps it 
was a mistake, and one that had led to trouble. But we main- 
tained that the trouble that grew out of it was from no fault 
of ours, but because of the interpretations and the false state- 
ments that were being made in regard to it by brethren who 
asserted at least a great love for the young men. Then, be- 
sides, not only, at the very worst, was our crime a mistake of 
judgment, but here came our congregations. My congrega- 
tion came up asking Pittsburgh Presbytery to allow me to 
preach to them until Synod, telling them I had not been 
preaching doctrines contrary to the principles of the Reformed 
Presbyterian Church ; telling them that this course of pro- 
ceeding was dividing the congregation and would lead to its 
destruction. And they came forward praying them to allow 
me to preach to them in the name of the Master until Synod 
should meet. One member of the court arose and was very 
anxious that we should be allowed to preach until Synod; 
another member from New Galilee, a member of the session 
I think from New Galilee, offered a resolution that in view of 
these petitions we be allowed to go back to our congregations 
and preach, on condition that we would preach political dis- 
sent, I don't know whether he meant from that time until 
Synod, but at least that was the resolution which was offered. 
But the Moderator asked the Clerk to take the chair so that 
he could address the court; and he maintained that to grant 
such a request would be to stultify the case, and hence after a 
ringing speech opposing such a motion as that, the case was 
lost. Pittsburgh Presbytery refused to grant the request not 
of the young men merely, but of loyal congregations in the 
Church that came to them pleading on behalf of their pastors, 
t aat they might be allowed to preach to them and speak to 
them in the name of the Master from that time until Synod, 
*)ut Pittsburgh Presbytery said, No. 

Now, Fathers and Brethren, in view of all these things we 
liave appealed to this higher court. We have appealed not 
only from the decision of that Presbytery in finding us guilty, 



WEDNESDAY, JUNE 3. 



93 



but we complain of the injustice and wrong that was done us 
in all the trial. We also appeal because the suspending us 
after our appeal had been taken, from the decision that the 
libel was sustained, was in our judgment illegal and unduly- 
severe. And now I come to you,. Fathers and Brethren, and 
ask that you will give my case due consideration ; that you 
will try me in the light of the law and the evidence ; that you 
will draw a distinction between things that differ, and though 
you may feel in your wisdom the necessity of expressing a 
contrary belief to my opinions; though you may feel it your 
duty as a Synod .to say that the East End Meeting was a mis- 
take, and that the opinions of that Platform are all wrong, I 
ask you, dear Fathers and Brethren, to draw a clear line of 
distinction between the fact that men may hold different 
opinions, and the fact that a man is guilty of the heinous and 
scandalous sin of pursuing a divisive course. I thank you for 
your kind attention. 

The MODERATOR : In the course of these proceedings 
the next speaker in order is the Rev. W. L. C. Samson who 
will now address the court in the prosecution of his appeal 
and complaint. 

Rev. W. L. C. SAMSOX: Dear Fathers and Brethren: Two 
years ago on the 2Sth day of May, I was ordained to the 
ministry of the gospel. Had I then known that inside of two 
years I was to stand before the highest court of the Reformed 
Presbyterian Church to plead that a sentence of suspension 
which had been pronounced upon me by the Presbytery, by 
which I had been ordained, be reversed, I am sure that at that 
time I would have turned my back upon the ministry and on 
the congregation whose call I had accepted. We do not know 
what the future contains for us ; but we have the promise that 
as the day is so the strength shall be. and in the months that 
have passed by since I was ordained to the ministry, Prov- 
idence has led me in wondrous ways. By the Pittsburgh 
Presbytery I have been adjudged guilty of following divisive 
courses on specifications that "persons who make a credible 
profession of Christ should be received into church member- 
ship upon their acceptance of our Testimony and Terms of 
Communion, without binding them to our explanation in the 
matter of political dissent or in other questions."' A divisive 
course is a course leading away from the path of truth. A 
course leading back to that path is not divisive, else Christ 
and the reformers were heinous and scandalous sinners. The 
specification does not lead away from truth, but is in accord, 
therewith. 

Our reasons of protest and appeal from Presbytery's action 
are four in number, and are : 

First. No Scripture was cited to prove that the things 
charged as siDful and scandalous were contrary to God's 
Word, the only rule of faith and manners. The Bible we all 



STENOGRAPHIC REPORT. 



acknowledge as the only rule of faith, and the Committee 
framing the libel were four D. D's, yet they adduced not one 
passage of Scripture to prove that the specifications therein 
were contrary to God's Word. They referred to the Book of 
Discipline, to acts of Synod, to the Covenant of 1871, the 
Terms of Communion and Testimony, but not to the only rule. 
One passage of Scripture applicable to the specifications in the 
libel would have shown its divisiveness more certainly than 
one hundred acts of Synod, and the libel itself is evidence that 
the specifications were not divisive, for in the whole Word of 
God the Committee found not a single passage from which it 
was departure. Therefore we appeal. 

Sfcond. The second reason for appeal is : The opinion to 
which exception was taken may be justified by the following 
Scriptures. Then follows a list of quotations. We have not 
taken them all up in the remarks we wish to make to you but 
have selected therefrom certain which we think bear specially 
on the case in hand. The specification may be justified by 
Scripture; for it is scriptural to hold that one who makes a 
credible profession should be received into church member- 
ship without binding him to our explanation of the Testimony 
and Terms of Communion. In Matthew's Gospel, 15th chap- 
ter, we find that the Pharisees arraigned Jesus for divisive 
courses. They charged that his disciples obeyed not the 
explanations of the elders, but ate with unwashed hands. 
Jesus replied to them when they complained that he did not 
walk in accordance with their explanations : "And why do ye 
also transgress the commandment of God by your traditions? 
But in vain do they worship, teaching for doctrines the com- 
mandments of men," or men's explanations. Christ's whole 
course was a protest against making explanations articles of 
faith; because he taught contrary to the traditions of the 
chief priests' the Pharisees crucified him. On the cross he 
received into the kingdom a man who made a credible profes- 
sion of him without binding him to an explanation of testi- 
mony. Beyond that test in the gospel commission Christ 
said nothing about binding converts to explanations. Those 
believing in him were to be baptized ; those baptized were 
taught not men's, or churches' explanations, but all things 
that He commanded. Peter, acting under that commission 
would not bind Cornelius to the explanation of the Jewish 
creeds concerning circumcision before he received him into 
the church. When those at Jerusalem found fault for his not 
requiring the Gentile officer to be bound by the Jewish 
explanation Peter said unto them, "What was I that I should 
withstand God.'' It was not God's will that explanations 
should be made binding, Paul also forbade the church at 
Rome binding to explanations those who made a credible 
profession of Christ. He said in Romans, 14th chapter, first 
verse: "Him that is weak in the faith receive ye but not to 



WEDNESDAY, JUNE 3. 



95 



doubtful disputations. For one believeth that he may eat all 
things; another, who is weak, eateth herbs. Let not him 
that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him that 
eateth not judge him that eateth; for God hath received 
him." The Jews were forbidden to bind the Gentiles to their 
explanations about what to eat and drink. The curse of the 
early church was the Jewish priests who made their explana- 
tions about circumcision terms of admission into the church. 
Paul tells those at Rome, whom God had received they 
should receive. The very last Revelation prohibits making 
explanations a term of church fellowship. Jesus, as the Book 
Divine is about to be closed, tells us, "Let him that is athirst 
come, and whosoever will, let him take of the water of 
life freely." But this is followed by the warning, "If any 
man shall add unto these things (the things that were written 
in the Book), God will add unto him the plagues that are in 
the Book." Other Scriptures might be adduced to show that 
Christ prohibited making explanations articles of faith; but 
these given are sufficient to show that one making a credible 
profession of Christ should be received into church member- 
ship without binding him to our explanation of the Testi- 
mony. And to hold that idea is but to hold what seems to us 
to be the true Scripture. Therefore, in the second place, we 
appeal to this court because the opinion specified as being 
divisive is scriptural. 

Third. The third reason for appeal is, the opinion to 
which exception was taken in no way contradicts those decla- 
rations of the standards to wmich reference was made in the 
libel, and it is in harmony with the following declarations, — 
then come the quotations. The specification in the libel does 
not contradict the church's standards, but it is in harmony 
with them. The Presbytery in the libel says the specification 
is opposed to the Book of Discipline, chapter 1, section 2, and 
paragraph 4, which says: "No one shall be admitted who 
holds any sentiments contrary to the Declaration and Tes- 
timony of the church." The Declaration and Testimony of 
the church is that which must be accepted. The specification 
again says: "The Testimony and Terms of Communion must 
be accepted before one can be admitted into the church." So 
it is not opposed to the Book of Discipline but is in harmony 
therewith. Presbytery in the libel also says that the speci- 
fication is contrary to the acts of Synod. Supposing it is, 
acts of Synod are not articles of faith, and, as the dissents 
that go on Synod's Minutes continually prove, do not have to 
be assented to in order to admission into the church. Pres- 
bytery in the libel again says, that the specification is contrary 
to our Covenant of 18^1'.. That Covenant is not an article of 
faith. Whole congregations have never, assented to it. I 
doubt not that there aire members of this court who never 
swore it. I will read from the Minutes of Synod that 



96 



STENOGRAPHIC REPORT. 



adopted the fourth Term of Communion in the new form. 
It is found on page 211 of the July number of the R. P. & C. 
for the year 1878 : "The Special Committee on the revised 
form of the fourth Term of Communion reported. The 
report was accepted and adopted and is as follows : 

Then comes the new fourth Term of Communion, and this 
follows: "The Revs. J. Love, and R. Johnston and Elder 
Thomas McKnight dissented from this action. " These men dis- 
sented from the action of Synod that made the Covenant of 
1871 a Term of Communion. The fact that Sj-nod recognized 
they had the right to dissent indicates that that new fourth 
Term of Communion which includes the Covenant of 1871,. 
was not made compulsory or binding upon individual mem- 
bers in the Church. Presbytery also specified in the libel, 
"the specification is subversive of the fourth and fifth Terms 
of Communion." The specification itself requires the accept- 
ance of those Terms. But you say the fourth Term of Com- 
munion requires the acceptance of the Covenant of 1871. We 
answer there are two Fourth Terms of Communion, the old 
and the new. The old only is binding. The new is not, be- 
cause as we have shown it requires acceptance of the Cove- 
nant of 1871 as an article of faith, and the taking of that Cove- 
nant is not compulsory upon individual members of the Re- 
formed Presbyterian Church. Presbytery further said in the 
libel, "the specification is subversive of the Testimony, chap- 
ters 22, 29, 30 and 32. Now the specification in the libel re- 
quires the acceptance of those very chapters before one can 
become a member of the Church. Then how can it be con- 
trary to those chapters'? You say it is because the specification 
requires the acceptance of tbe standards without binding to 
our explanation of them. 

We have seen that God"s Word prohibits making explana- 
tions articles of faith. We believe the Testimony of the Re- 
formed Presbyterian Church to be agreeable unto and founded 
upon the Word of God. Does that Testimony bind those who 
accept it to our explanations of it? It does not; and more 
than that, it absolutely prohibits making explanations Terms 
of Communion. In the very beginning of the Testimony that 
prohibition is found. On page 8 in the preface to the Testi- 
mony of the Reformed Presbyterian Church you will read ; 
"It (the argumentative or explanatory part) is not recom- 
mended as an article of faith ; authentic history and sound 
argument are always to be highly valued, but they should not 
be incorporated with the Church's Confession of Faith." 
That is what the Testimony of the Reformed Presbyterian. 
Ohurch says with reference to the argumentative or explana- 
tory part thereof. The specification that was placed in the 
libel to prove the charge of divisive courses says, that you 
shall not make explanations binding. Is there a departure 
then from the path of truth? What do we find then is required 



WEDNESDAY, JUNE 3. 



97 



for church membership? It is this: "The Declaratory part is 
the Church's Standing Testimony. It contains principles 
capable of universal application. To these principles founded 
upon the Scriptures simply stated and invariably the same in 
every part of the world every adult church member is to give 
his unequivocal assent." Only the principles then of the De- 
claratory Testimony are articles of faith. So says the book; 
and it also says. u that it is an error that any king or magis- 
trate, pope or council has a right to dictate any part of the 
doctrine or order of the Christian Church." (Testimony , 
chapter 20, error 4.) 

The Church's Testimony then prohibits making explana- 
tions Terms of Communion and the specification of the libel 
requires the acceptance of our Testimony and Terms of Com- 
munion without binding to our explanation of them. An 
aged father, who is not here to-day because the weight of years 
and disease is weighing upon him, in the year 1890 published 
in the February number of the Keformed Presbyterian and 
Covenanter an article on the Uniting of the Churches, in 
which these statements or quotations will be found: "Jesus 
Christ as Head of the Church and King of Nations is the alone 
foundation on which the Church can be permanently united." 
Further on speaking with reference to the united church 
which was the subject he was writing upon, he says : "There 
are four points on which the evangelical churches are now di- 
vided. These are: — The duty of refusing allegiance to a. 
government that is not in allegiance to Jesus Christ as King; 
the subjects and mode of baptism; the form of government of 
the Church, and the matter of praise. With regard to the* 
first which is our position as Covenanters we can have no dif- 
ficulty. The Platform is that on which we have always stood. 
We are required to relinquish nothing. But it may be asked 
could we heartily cooperate with those who should think that 
the Platform as they understood it allows them to exercise 
the rights of citizens? Now their constructions of the Plat- 
form are no part of it. I am not required to give them my 
endorsement; nor are they required to endorse my views.. 
My private opinion is that in a short time they will see their 
inconsistency and come to our position ; and if they think that 
I will receive such light from the Platform, as will lead me to 
them, they are welcome to think so, if they do not attempt to 
thrust their sentiments on me. Agreement in principles must 
lead to agreement in practice." Further on he says : "There 
would be ground of hope that the attention being directed to 
the authority of Christ as the only Head of the Church, sub- 
ordinate standards would cease to hold such power over the 
judgment as they do now, and that those who are mistaken 
on these points will receive light to know what is the mind of 
Christ." "As regards the manner and form of praise there is 
ground of hope that as all can join in singing the Psalms of 



98 



STENOGRAPHIC REPORT. 



inspiration, the use of hymns and instrumental music would 
not be allowed to disturb the peace of the Church/' "It is a 
pertinent question— What will be done with the subordinate 
standards respectively of the churches when united? My 
answer is, let them alone; do nothing with them. The West- 
minster formularies will remain as monuments of the fidelity, 
wisdom and piety of those who formed them. They answered 
an important end ; and as manuals of instruction they are in- 
valuable. The same thing to some extent may be said of the 
standards of other churches. All contain a large amount of 
precious truth. Subordinate standards are not to be allowed 
to occupy the place of the law in the determination of con- 
troversies. That belongs to the Holy Scriptures, exhibited 
and maintained in the Platform. I am persuaded that the 
exalting of the compilations of doctrines by men, to the place 
that belongs only to the Word of God, has done much to in- 
tensify and embitter the controversies about the Christian 
faith." From what we have read it is very apparent that ex- 
planations of subordinate standards, or the explanations of 
standards, are not to be made articles of faith. In this plank 
to which exception was taken, and which is the specification 
in the libel that was framed against us, we simply ask that 
those who make a credible profession of faith in the Lord 
Jesus Christ and accept the Church's standards, the Church's 
Testimony and Terms of Communion, shall be received into 
church membership without binding them to our explanations 
in the matter of political dissent or other questions. Brethren, 
it seems to me that if the explanation is worthy to be put in a 
libel framed against us, and is the charge by which we have 
been suspended from the ministry, you also ought to place 
with us in consistency the man who may be regarded as the 
father of the Church. The Testimony prohibits making ex- 
planations Terms of Communion and the specification in the 
libel requires the acceptance of our Testimony and the Terms 
of Communion without binding to our explanation of them. 
The specification then, it seems to me, is not a departure from 
the constitutional law of the Church but is in harmony there- 
with. Therefore we appeal. Now these three points "that we 
have considered together show that the libel that was framed 
against us was inadmissable and was irrelevant to censure, 
because the specification in that libel was not a departure 
from God's Word or from our standards which we regard as 
resting thereon. 

Fourth. The fourth reason for appeal is, that the decision 
of Presbytery was subversive of the Biblical, Protestant, dem- 
ocratic, Covenanter right of free judgment, free discussion, and 
free orderly assembly. To have and express an opinion is not 
to be guilty of divisive courses, especially when that opinion 
is, as we have shown, in harmony with God's Word and the 
Church's Testimony. When the Pharisees forbade Peter and 



WEDNESDAY. JUNE 3. 



99 



John to preach the gospel, they said, "whether it be right in 
the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God 
judge ye.' 1 (Acts, chapter 4th.) When the apostles were 
again brought to the High Priest for violating the command 
against speaking in Jesus' name they said, "We ought to obey 
God rather than man." (Acts, chapter 5th.) The apostles 
claimed to exercise the God-given right of free thought and 
free speech. John said, ^Beloved, believe not every spirit, but 
try the spirits whether they are of God.'- (1st John, chapter 4, 
verse 1.) Every man is to think for himself under God and 
accept no theory without trying it for himself bv the Word. 
So much for the divine standard. The Confession of Faith 
teaches that "God alone is Lord of the conscience, and hath 
left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men 
which are in anything contrary to his Word, or beside it, in 
matters of faith or worship. So that to believe such doctrines, 
or to obey such commandments out of conscience, is to betray 
true liberty of conscience and reason also." (Confession of 
Faith, chapter 20, page 20, sec. 2.) "Covenanters claim as a 
right, liberty of expressing their sentiments with becoming 
modesty and firmness." (K. P. Testimony, page 61.) United 
States Constitution says, "that Congress shall make no law 
abridging the freedom of speech or of the press." (Constitu- 
tion of the United States as amended.) 

The specification in the libel was held and expressed only 
as an opinion. It was never publicly expressed by myself ex- 
cept before the Pittsburgh Presbytery, and then at the request 
of Presbytery, in order that the divisions that were between 
brethren might be healed over once more. The sentiments in 
that second plank of the East End Platform which are speci- 
fied as the charge against us in the libel, were never publicly 
uttered by me, as 1 said, except to Pittsburgh Presbytery and 
at Presbytery's request. They were never followed as a rnle 
of action, and when Presbytery adjudged me guilty of follow- 
ing divisive courses, for holding and expressing an opinion 
founded upon God's Word and the Church's Testimony, it did 
so in violation of the Scriptures, the Testimony, the funda- 
mental principles of civil and religious liberty, and thereby 
struck a blow at the foundation of all liberty. 

Let the line of action that Pittsburgh Presbytery pursued 
with reference to us be followed by the government of the 
United States with reference to the Covenanter Church, 
and what will be the result ? You are met here as a Synod to 
testify against that which is the fundamental law of the land. 
You say that it is contrary to God's Word. You bear witness 
against this government. If the government would do to this 
Synod as Pittsburgh Presbytery has done to us, a Deputy 
Marshall would be sent here to disperse this body. Allow the 
same principles that have been laid down by the Pittsburgh 
Presbytery with reference to us to be pursued by the United 



LrfC. 



100 



STENOGRAPHIC REPORT. 



States with reference to the publications that are in a large 
measure supported by our Church, and you would have a 
Deputy Sheriff or an officer representing the Government of 
the United States closing the door of the Statesman '« office in 
Philadelphia and prohibit that sheet being spread broadcast 
through this country, because it dares to lift its voice against 
the fundamental law of the land. Follow the line of action 
laid down by the Pittsburgh Presbytery in finding us guilty 
of holding an opinion and expressing it, and suspending us 
from the ministry for it, and you lead yourselves back to the 
dark ages. These reasons show the specification not a 
departure from truth ; hence it is not a divisive course to say, 
"that persons who make a credible profession of Christ 
should be received into church membership on their ac- 
ceptance of our Testimony and Terms of Communion without 
binding them to our explanation in the matter of political 
dissent or in other questions." The course of Presbytery in 
adjudging me a heinous and scandalous sinner on such a 
specification was a subversion of all law and liberty, and 
therefore we appeal to you for redress. 

We also appeal claiming that injustice and wrong has been 
done by the Pittsburgh Presbytery, by the decision rendered, 
but especially in the manner in which the decision was 
reached. The special reasons for complaint are : 

1st. It was unjust and wrong for Presbytery to entertain a 
charge, the specifications of which were not shown to be 
contrary to the Word of God, the only rule of faith and man- 
ners. In that libel there was a specification which Presby- 
tery regarded as being sufficiently sinful and scandalous 
to suspend seven men from the exercise of the ministry 
because they, at Presbytery's request, expressed their ad- 
herence to that plank in the East End Platform. Yet when 
the libel was framed, not one quotation was brought from the 
Word of God to show that that specification is contrary to the 
teachings of Scripture. If nothing should be found in God's 
Word to show that this specification was a departure from 
the truth, and hence I say it is reasonable to infer that the 
specification is not admissible for a libel ; and even if it is 
admitted, it is not relevant to censure. In this connection let 
us read from the Book: "These (referring to the evidence 
and the charges) the judicatory, if it judge the charge 
censurable, and the circumstances of time, <fcc, sufficient, 
shall put into the form of a libel, which shall be signed by the 
said person or persons as the prosecuting party, who alone 
shall be responsible for the truth of the charge." (Book of 
Discipline, page 71.) That is, if the judicatory judge the 
charge worthy of censure, they shall frame a libel against the 
individual having done such and such a thing. 

]S!"ow I hold that if nothing could be found in God's Word 
to show that that specification was contrary to the law, it 



WEDNESDAY, JUNE 3. 



101 



never should have been admitted to Presbytery and framed 
and made a specification in a libel. 

On page 74 there is found that which has reference to rel- 
evancy : "The first thing to be considered on the trial is the 
relevancy of the libel; that is, whether the charges, if proved, 
be censurable." That is, whether or not the thing specified 
be that which is worthy of censure. Now, I think I have 
shown you very clearly from God's Word, from the standards, 
from the fundamental doctrines of the Church, that that 
specification rests thereon. Now, could the specification be 
relevant to censure? But supposing that the manner in which 
we put forth that specification, or the manner in which we 
maintained our ideas, or circulated that Platform, or the 
manner in which we met in the East End church was not 
exactly regular, — I say, supposing I admit that it was not 
regular in everything, — here is the specification in the libel. 
It seems to us that it is the truth of God and the truth of our 
own Church standards. We may have erred in the manner in 
which we spread abroad that truth, as we believe it to be. But 
for Presbytery to arraign us on a charge of that kind, to 
decide it admissible, to decide it relevant to censure, seems to 
me contrary to our own Book of Discipline which says, "That 
care should be taken that public process be not commenced 
for slight offences which if proved are irrelevant to censure, 
or which are evidently incapable of any proof. Here is the 
specification in the libel which we think to be in accord with 
God's Word and the Testimony and Terms of Communion of 
our Church. The holding of that opinion is that which is 
charged against us as a heinous and scandalous sin. Ah, if 
that specification had been studied before the libel was 
framed, — if the Book had been studied, — I do not think we 
would be here to-day appealing to you, the highest court in 
the Reformed Presbyterian Church, to reverse the action of 
Pittsburgh Presbytery, and complaining because of the in- 
justice and wrong which they did us in admitting and voting 
relevant to censure the specification that was contained in the 
libel. 

Every Covenanter has acknowledged u the Scriptures of the 
Old and New Testaments to be the Word of God and the only 
rule of faith and manners." The specification in the charge 
is not admissible or relevant unless it be contrary to Scrip- 
ture. No Scripture was adduced in the libel to show that the 
specification was contrary thereunto. Therefore the specifi- 
cation in the libel was inadmissible and irrelevant to censure. 
Only heinous and scandalous sins are censurable. (Tes- 
timony, chapter 31.) To say that a person who makes a 
credible profession of faith m Christ should be received into 
church membership without binding him to an explanation of 
standards, is not scandalous, for this is what our own Book 
holds. Therefore it is not censurable. The libel itself, as 



102 



STENOGRAPHIC REPORT. 



t stands before you to day, and as it has been read in your 
hearing, is a monument of the injustice of Pittsburgh Pres- 
bytery. 

Second. In view of the facts, that any intention of vio- 
lating any principle or practice of the Church has been publicly 
denied ; and that, by resolutions assented to and subscribed, 
the keeping and enforcing of the Church's practice in that to 
which exception was taken had voluntarily been made obli- 
gatory, it was unjust and wrong for Presbytery to entertain 
charges, proceed to trial and sustain the accusation. Pres- 
bytery's official document, the Pastoral Letter, admits there 
was no intention upon our part of violating the Church's law. 
The Pastoral Letter reads : "Time and again it was officially 
affirmed that no charge was made against the moral character 
of the accused, not even in the matter of intention or motive, 
in the divisive course which they had in fact pursued." (R. 
P. & C. March, 1891.) Yet when they admitted that we had 
no intention of pursuing a course that was divisive, — of walk- 
ing contrary to the law and order of the Church, — they pro- 
ceeded to suspend us. In the very face of that admission they 
proceeded to brand us as heinous and scandalous sinners. It 
was unjust and wrong, we claim, for Presbytery to do that, and 
Presbytery's official document, the Pastoral Letter, proves it. 
The resolutions of the Judicial Committee were assented to, 
and they bound us to the keeping and enforcing of the 
Church's laws. Those resolutions were as follows: 1. We 
disavow the East End Platform as a basis of union within the 
Reformed Presbyterian Church and as other than an explana- 
tion of individual opinion. 2. We engage to abide by the 
existing laws of this Church as to voting at civil elections and 
holding office, and to carry them out in the exercise of our 
office. 3. We engage not to propagate contrary views to the 
above while holding the position of ministers of the Reformed 
Presbyterian Church." It may be said that I withdrew my 
assent from that basis. I want to say here and now, from 
that basis as it was drawn up and as it was assented to in the 
Judicial Committe, I never have withdrawn my assent. 

Right in this connection let us consider one of the reasons 
that we give further on for complaining of injustice and 
wrong: ' k 6. Presbytery unjustly refused to correct misrepre- 
sentations of us in the Minutes." 

The Minute referred to is, quoting other names, my own in 
connection : "W. L. C. Samson stated in the court that Pres- 
bytery having taken the above action he repudiated the basis 
of agreement submitted to Presbytery in the Judicial Com- 
mittee's Report." W. L. C. Samson, never said that he 
repudiated the agreement submitted to Presbytery in the 
Judicial Report, the Minute of Presbytery to the contrary 
nothwithstanding. What I did say was this : U I care not what 
action Presbytery may take with reference to the East End 



WEDNESDAY, JUNE 3. 



103 



Meeting." This language had reference to the resolutions 
that were introduced as a preliminary, or amendment, to the 
basis agreed upon. I said : "I care not what actioD Presbytery 
may take with reference to the East End Meeting and Plat- 
form. You may say what you please about them. But do 
not couple that action with the basis. I accepted that in 
good faith, and I stand by it; but if the resolutions introduced 
are riders thereto I will not adhere to it." 

Now right here I want to explain. The day that Presbytery 
met to receive the Report of the Judicial Committee, the chair- 
man of the Committee made his report as soon as Presbytery 
was constituted and the preliminary business transacted. The 
Report was no sooner made than a member of the Committee 
arose, tearing open old wounds in a very unpleasant manner, 
for the six at least, (seven altogether). It was a very different 
action from that which we had expected he would do when 
he came to present that basis of settlement. The resolutions 
were introduced as a preliminary to or amendment of the basis 
agreed upon. I felt at that time that that was a breach of 
faith, a violation of the confidence we had placed in the man 
who did that act. Those resolutions were introduced about 
twelve o'clock in the morning. It was immediately moved 
and seconded that they be considered in connection with the 
basis presented by the Judicial Committee. From that time, 
about twenty minutes of twelve, until four o'clock in the after- 
noon, the resolutions introduced and the basis presented by 
the Judicial Committe hung together with the exception of 
an hour and a half or two hours for dinner. The attempt was 
made to pass the basis presented by the Judicial Committee 
with the riders attached thereto. Finally some one moved 
that the question be divided ; that the basis presented by the 
Judicial Committee be laid on the table and Presbytery take 
action in reference to the Resolution presented in the Pres- 
bytery. That was done. Now I am willing to make an 
acknowledgment of my ignorance with reference to parlia- 
mentary law. You have been told that we are young men, 
and we are young. [ thought when Presbytery adopted the 
preliminaries than we would take up the basis of settlement, 
and that it was simply adding the basis of settlement to the 
preliminaries, not presenting them to us in their distinct 
form. Having the idea in my mind that I would stand by the 
basis, and not certain as to what the action of Presbytery did 
purport, I put in the qualifications that I did, which I have 
read to you from the statemeut I made here. I never with- 
drew my assent from the basis presented by the Judicial 
Committee, and stand by it to-day for that matter. The fact 
that we gave assent to that basis goes to show very clearly 
that we have no intention of going contrary to the principles 
or practice of the Church's law. So much for the basis pre- 
sented by the Judicial Committee. 



104 



STENOGRAPHIC REPORT. 



But there was another set of resolutions which were as- 
sented to by myself, and were presented to the court* They 
are as follows: "1. We do not hold the East End Platform 
as a bond of union within the Keformed Presbyterian Church, 
but as an expression of individual opinion sent forth for the 
purpose of correcting current misrepresentations. 2. As 
officers of the Reformed Presbyterian Church we have kept 
and intend to keep the laws of this Church as to voting at civil 
elections and holding civil office. 3. We will not in any dis- 
orderly manner maintain the views expressed in the above 
East End Platform." 

In view of the fact that Presbytery's own records show that 
they agreed with us that there was no intention of violating 
the Church's law, — in view of the fact that we assented to the 
basis proposed by the Judicial Committee, or Commission, 
or whatever it may have been, in Pittsburgh Presbytery, — and 
in view of the fact that we presented resolutions which we 
signed, and voluntarily bound ourselves to keep the Church's 
law, obey the Church's practices, it was unjust and wrong for 
Presbytery to entertain the charge, proceed to trial and find 
us guilty of the specification. 

The third and fourth reasons for the complaint I have 
thought best to pass by. 

The fifth reason for appeal concerns the way in which 
evidence was secured by which a libel might be framed 
against us; the way that evidence was secured, upon which 
to attempt to frame a libel was unjust and unfair. Under the 
guise of effecting a settlement Presbytery secured the evidence 
to convict us. Opportunity was given to make statements. 
True, as it doubtless will be said, those statements, were 
made voluntarily; but they were made, as is shown by the 
report of the Judicial Committee, with the purpose of 
effecting a settlement of the differences of opinion that were 
then causing trouble iu Pittsburgh Presbytery. The olive 
branch was held out. We thought they meant what they said 
when they stated they wanted this thing that was shaking the 
Church settled, and wanted us to make statements in order 
that we might see eye to eye, that the trouble might be at an 
end. We told all we knew with reference to the East End 
Platform, and gave an explanation thereof as we understood 
it. It was charged at the time that statements were being 
made that Presbytery wanted those statements as evidence by 
which they would be able to convict us. That charge was 
presented by a man who was on the committee to frame the 
libels against us, and which used those statements as the only 
evidence that was adduced. 

ISTow the wording of the Judicial Committee's Report ifo 
this — that opportunity be given to make statements, was 
first recommended, and then comes this quotation: '*That if 
possible by the most frank, open and candid expression of 



WEDNESDAY, JUNE 3. 



105 



views and purposes we may come to see eye to eye, and 
mutual confidence be restored." (Report of Committee on 
Discipline, section 4, paragraph 2.) We thought Presbytery 
wanted to settle the matter, and candidly gave a full state- 
ment concerning the meaning and purpose of the East End 
Platform. Those statements were made for the purpose of 
effecting a mutual settlement. Yet those statements were the 
only evidence adduced against us. In civil courts statements 
made under those conditions, made for the purpose of 
effecting a compromise settlement, cannot be introduced as 
evidence. Yet Pittsburgh Presbytery, a court of the Lord's 
house, did that which the civil law does not do. This 
government, which is called Godless and Christless permits 
no such methods in its courts of justice. Presbytery's method 
of securing evidence was unjust and unfair. 

Sixth. Presbytery refused to correct misrepresentation of 
us in the Minutes. This reason we have already brought to 
your notice. I would add here, in connection with the state- 
ments made before, that I called Presbytery's attention to the 
fact at the meeting that followed, that when Presbytery acted 
on the Minutes which were brought to your attention, that 
that Minute misrepresented me, — that I did not repudiate the 
basis presented there, but what I said was, that if the Resolu- 
tions presented in connection therewith were riders thereto, I 
would not stand by it. I wanted the statement that I made in 
my objection placed upon the Minutes, yet Presbytery refused 
to put that statement in the Minutes, and in that regard acted 
wrongly and unjustly towards me. 

Seventh. Presbytery had manifestly prejudged the case. 
Fifteen members of Presbytery had so made up their minds 
that they were my accusers and prosecutors before ever 
testimony other than hearsay was had. Eleven of the fifteen 
accused us of forming an organization for the purpose of 
abandoning the principles and practices of the Covenanter 
Church and requested Presbytery to take notice of their 
accusation. Those eleven were members of the Elders' Con- 
vention, and the Resolutions of the Elders' Convention that 
have been read in your hearing charge us, "certain indefinite 
persons," whose names are furnished in the Report of 
Discipline, with forming an organization for the purpose of 
abandoning the distinctive principles and practices of the 
Covenanter Church. They knew who w T ere meant by that 
charge. Men who can make such charges, and men who can 
ask Presbytery to prosecute their case for them, certainly 
have made up their minds. Eleven members of that Pres- 
bytery were members of the Elders' Convention. Their 
names are signed to the call, and were signed to the call at 
the time of the meeting of the Elders' Convention, in which 
these charges were made to which we have reference, and 
which convention petitioned Presbytery to prosecute us. 



106 



STENOGRAPHIC REPORT. 



The names of the eleven are: "John A. Dodds, John T. 
Morton, — 

A DELEGATE: Mr. Moderator, is that permissible? 
Mr. D. TOEEENS : I don't think that is admissible. 
Kev. Mr. SAMSON : I just want to substantiate my state- 
ment. 

Dr. E. J. GEOEGE. I wish to say, as one of the prose- 
cutors, I raise no objection to it. 

A DELEGATE : I do not see why it is not admissible, 

The MODEEATOE: The Moderator does not see any 
reason why they cannot be read. 

Mr. SAMSON ; It is just in substantiation of my statement 
that eleven of the members of Presbytery had made up their 
minds on the case before the trial began, viz., John A. Dodds, 
John T. Morton, E. A. Bole, M. W. Leslie, J. G. McElroy, 
Jno. H. Eeed, Eobert Glasgow, J. M. Douthett, and Joseph 
Wallace. Those eleven men signed the call for the Elders' 
Convention. Even the time of the meeting was put to it. 
The Elders' Convention made the charge against us that we 
had formed an organization for the purpose of abandoning 
the principles and practices of the Covenanter Church, and 
wanted Presbytery to prosecute us for doing that thing. 
Four of the fifteen, one elder and three ministers, in me- 
morials to Presbytery made five most grave and serious 
accusations. The Eeport of the Committee on Discipline, 
after the Committee had summed up the different papers that 
were forwarded to Presbytery, in section 1, contains the 
charges that were drawn from the Memorials, and they are as 
follows : "The matters complained of are of the most grave and 
serious character : 1. False and heretical teaching, contrary 
to the Word'of God, and the accepted standards of the Church. 
2. Following divisive courses by assailing clearly defined 
doctrines and practices of the Cliurch. 3. Covenant breaking 
and apostasy, in departing from past attainments and"viola- 
ting our sworn engagements. 4. Breach of official trust by 
disregard of solemn ordination vows and the use of influential 
positions to break down the Church entrusted them to 
maintain. 5. Insubordination to the Synod and contempt of 
its authority." Those accusations were contained in the 
papers that were referred to Presbj^tery, and the Eeport of 
the Committee on Discipline claimed that. Those who could 
make such statements certainly had prejudged the case. 

Fifteen persons were concerned in the papers presented and 
were also members of the Court. I think at that Presbytery 
that tried us there were twenty-nine members of the Court. 
Fifteen, by the papers that were brought there containing 
accusations against us, had judired us guilty before ever the 
Court met. Presbytery had prejudged the case, and there- 
fore we appeal to you for justice. 



WEDNESDAY, JUNE 3. 



107 



Eighth. The reasons assigned by those voting to sustain 
the charges were not based upon the law and the evidence, 
hut upon expediency and other grounds. We will pass by 
this eighth reason. 

Ninth. We humbly believe the charges sustained origin- 
ated in misunderstanding and misrepresentations of our 
actions and doings rather than any wrong doing of ours. The 
report of the Committee on Discipline charged us with being- 
heretics, followers of divisive courses, apostates, breakers of 
official trust, insubordinates. Those were the things that 
were complained of in Memorials. Those were the things 
that the Committee on Discipline found contained in these 
papers that were referred to Presbytery. The Committee 
truly said that the charges were grave and serious. If these 
charges were true we ought not simply to be kicked out of 
the Covenanter Church, but we ought to be barred out of 
every body that professes to be a part of the body of the Lord 
Jesus Christ. We were charged as being covenant breakers, 
heretics, apostates, followers of divisive courses, those who 
had broken trust, those who were insubordinate ! Now, we 
propose to show from the very report that the Committee on 
Discipline brought in that our belief with reference to the 
origin of the whole affair, as it is brought before you, came 
from misunderstanding and misrepresentations. 

Did Presbytery libel us on all the charges that were con- 
tained in that Committee's Eeport? Did they libel us for 
heresy? Ah. no! When they had the statements all in they 
didn't think we were guilty of heresy, for the libel didn't 
charge us with that. Did they charge us with being apos- 
tates? Ah, no! When we told qui- story, when the evidence 
was in, it was very apparant that somebody had, to say the 
least, misunderstood us. Did the libel charge us with breach 
of trust? Did it charge us with insubordination? Ah, no ! 
Those charges, made by the Committee on Discipline, as 
being contained in the papers referred to them, were all 
passed by, except the one, divisive courses, and that the least 
of all that was alleged against us. On our statements, made 
with the purpose of effecting a settlement, they brought in a 
libel. The report of the Committee on Discipline, when 
placed side by side with the libel, proves that there was mis- 
understanding, and, as a natural consequence, misrepresent- 
ation of us. They may say that they could have libelled us 
on these other charges. Right here, we want to say, that if 
we were apostates, if we were heretics, if we were those who 
had broken trust, if we were ones that were insubordinate, — 
Presbytery in not libelling us on those charges became parti- 
ceps criminis. You have heard brought out on the floor of 
this Synod how very ready Pittsburgh Presbytery was to en- 
force the law. They were very ready, and if they could have 
convicted us of apostasy and heresy, of breaeh of official trust 



108 



STENOGRAPHIC REPORT. 



and insubordination, we would have had the libels against us. 
But there were no such charges against us, 

Because of the great injustice done by Pittsburgh Presby- 
tery, not to me only, but to the cause of the truth, the 
Church's Testimony, God's Law and the Lord Jesus Christ, 
in their unjust and unchristian course of procedure, we com- 
plain to your honorable body and appeal to you to reverse the 
finding of the lower court on the ground that it is not the f olr- 
lo wing of divisive courses to hold "that persons who make a 
credible profession of Christ shall be received into Church 
membership on their acceptance of our Testimony and Terms 
of Communion without binding them to our explanation in 
the manner of political dissent or in other questions," be- 
cause it is in harmony with God's Word and the Testimony, 
and the finding of Presbytery was subversive of all true 
liberty. 

We complain of injustice and wrong done to us by Pitts- 
hurgh Presbytery because the libel that was framed against 
us contained no Scripture to prove that the specifications 
therein were contrary to the Word of God, and therefore was 
inadmissible and irrelevant to censure. We appeal to you 
and complain of injustice and wrong done to us by the Pitts- 
burgh Presbytery in finding us guilty of the heinous sin and 
scandal of following divisive courses when according to Pres- 
bytery's own official Pastoral Letter no immoral charge was 
brought against us. When we had assented to the basis pro- 
posed by the Judicial Committee, when we had voluntarily 
subscribed a basis ourselves, by which we were bound to keep 
and enforce the law, it was unjust and wrong, in view of those 
tacts, for Presbytery to entertain the libel, proceed to trial and 
convict us. Presbytery acted unjustly and wrongly in their 
method of procedure against us, in that they refused to allow 
us to make corrections of Minutes that misrepresented us. 
Presbytery was prejudiced against us. The fifteen to whom 
we have made reference were accusers and prosecutors before 
erer Presbytery met. The fifteen were a majority of those 
who sat in our case 

We complain, in the last place, because the charges that 
were brought against us originated in misunderstandings and 
misrepresentations of us, as is proven beyond the possibility 
of a doubt when the report of the Committee on Discipline is 
placed side by side with the libel that was framed against us. 

Dear Fathers and Brethren, I have taken very much of your 
time, more than I thought I would occupy; but I ask you, in 
closing, to remember that there is another appeal, and that 
appeal is with reference to the sentence that was passed upon 
us. We give two reasons for appeal and complaint from that 
sentence. The first one of them we will not touch upon, but 
rest our argument on that made by brother Reed, which was 
based upon the old 'Scottish law. First. The first reason for 



WEDNESDAY, JUNE 3. 



109 



complaint against the sentence of suspension is, That it was 
unjust to execute the sentence when an appeal from Presby- 
tery's decision had been entered. We rest our case, on the 
first reason for complaint, on the argument which has been 
presented by Mr. Keed, and also by the brother preceding, 
Mr. Milligan. 

Second. The severity of the sentence was unwarranted 
by the offence charged. Admitting that the opinion w T hich 
we hold is contrary to Scripture ; admitting that it is contrary 
to the Testimony ; admitting that we did make a mistake, I 
ask you, the Synod of the Eeformed Presbyterian Church, to 
say if it was just, if it was right, for Presbytery to suspend us 
from the office of the ministry on such a charge as that, when 
it is remembered that we obligated ourselves to keep the law, 
—when Presbytery bound us to keep the law, — when we said 
we only hold it as an opinion,— when we only put forth that 
opinion for the purpose of correcting misrepresentations. 

And now we close. We thank you for your kind attention. 
Remember that in deciding on this case you are deciding a 
case that concerns your own law; concerns the law o*f God; 
concerns the fundamental principles of liberty. We feel that 
if you sustain the action of Pittsburgh Presbytery you 
trample down your own Testimony to do it ; we feel that if 
you sustain the action of Presbytery, you lay aside God's 
Word to do it; and, if you sustain Pittsburgh Presbytery with 
reference to the sentence that was pronounced, 1 will say 
nothing. 

(At the conclusion of Mr. Sampson's address the court ad- 
journed until to-morrow morning.) 

MORNING SESSION. 

Thursday, June 4th, 1891. 

After the usual morning exercises, the Moderator anounced 
that the business before the Court was the hearing of the 
pending Appeals from, and Complaints of the action, of 
Pittsburgh Presbytery ; and that the next speaker in order 
was Rev. O. B. Milligan. 

Rev. O. B. MILLIGAN : I am impressed with the fact that 
I do not wish to occupy the platform until I can stand there 
as a free man, with the enjoyment of all the rights and priv- 
ileges of any who are sitting this day in the Lord's house. 
Moreover, if I would take that platform I would hold you, 
Mr. Moderator, and the members of this Court, to answer any 
charge that might be preferred against me for contempt of the 
authority of the Pittsburgh Presbytery. Now, I state that in 
all kindness. I have thus far refused to stand on a platform 
behind a pulpit in the Reformed Presbyterian Church. By 
so doing I have been obedient to the authority of the Pitts- 
burgh Presbytery, and 1 feel that now for me to take that 



110 



STENOGRAPHIC REPORT. 



place would be or might be construed as a contempt of the 
authority of Pittsburgh Presbytery. With this explanation, 
if the members of the Court desire me to take the platform, 
I am perfectly willing to do so. 1 would just remark that 
there is one happy thought that the pulpit is not here. (Cries 
of "Platform,"' "ifo." 

Kev. O. B. MILLIGrAJST : I judge that it is true, Fathers 
and Brethren, that the lives of all of us are made up of anom- 
alies. Strange things happen us to-day only to be succeeded 
by stranger things to-morrow, until in the end, I doubt not, 
that we are all surprised and ready to cry out: "Behold the 
wonderments.*' I cannot but hesitate for a little to gather up 
a few recollections, for the sacred memories of my childhood, 
my boyhood and of my early manhood, are associated with 
the walls of this building in' which we are gathered to-day. 
Here I learned the first rudiments of that grandest system 
which the world has ever known — the system of Christianity. 
Here I was persuaded of the necessity, or duty, devolving up- 
on every man to make a public profession and acknowledg- 
ment of Him in whose hands our life is and whose are all 
our ways. Here I handled for the first time the symbols of 
the broken body and blood shed of our crucified Kedeemer. 
Here I shouldered those responsibilities that belong to all that 
have declared that they are on the Lord's side. Here I was 
moulded in that ambition, under the influence of which I was 
constrained to give myself to the ministr}^ of Christ. In these 
walls I worshipped and served the four years of preparation 
that I spent in the seminary. Here I was given the right to 
preach the gospel of Christ by a court of God's house Here 
I attempted for the first time to declare that gospel that has 
brought peace and happiness to the minds of the children of 
men. And now. Brethren, I stand to-day to defend my right 
to preach this very gospel of Jesus to which work my father 
in my boyhood, my father all through my growing years, 
consecrated and helped me to undertake. 

You will not wonder then, Fathers and Brethren, when I 
tell you that the emotions of my heart at this time are of a 
very conflicting character. And yet, there never was a cloud 
which to the careful observer had not some bright spot in it. 
And in this case there is a bright spot to me. Charged as I 
have been, found guilty as I have been and suspended by a 
court of God's house, as I have been for the heinous sin and 
scandal of following divisive courses, yet no man has lifted 
his voice against my moral character. Brethren of Pitts- 
burgh Presbytery, I thank you that you have made it possible 
for me to stand here without having cast a reproach upon the 
name I bear. 

And now, Fathers and Brethren, I am happy that this hour 
has come. For six months, and especially for the last seven 
days, burdens of almost intolerable weight, fears unrelieved, 



THURSDAY, JUNE 4. 



Ill 



1 might say, by any hope, have been preying upon my heart. 
Weighed down by this burden of care I say that I am happy 
the hour is eome and the burden ie about to be lifted. And 
let come what will come, I thank my God that he is soon to 
bring me out of this unhappy state. Brethren, I am here to 
defend myself in answer to grave charges. And I want to 
say just here that, grant that these charges be true; grant 
that these men have acted justly and rightously in what they 
have done ; I want to say to you, not only in your presence 
but in the presence of my God, that if I have been guilty, I 
have been innocent of any malice or premeditation to do evil 
to the Church in which I was born. I love the Covenanter 
Church, and because I love her I stand to-day before you. 
Doubtless you all know that had I been desirous to have been 
away frjm you to-day, the opportunity was open to me; but 
it was the sense of the obligation that demanded of me and 
compelled me to recall what I had done that I might appear 
before you to defend my course with reference to the Church 
I love. And, Brethren, I want to say more. Perhaps the 
strangest part of this whole matter to me is this : that while 
there was a way by which these things could have been 
averted, men whom I love and whom I have respected all my 
days, at whose feet I gathered what little learning I possess 
to-day, men who could have averted this trouble that is now 
upon our Zion, are the very men that have compelled me to 
appear before you. I believe, Fathers and Brethren, that I 
am in possession of Christian graces. I believe that if it had 
been proven necessary for me to repent of what I had done, I 
could have repented. I believe that if it had been proven 
necessary for me to recall my endorsement of the East End 
Platform, 1 could have done it ; such has been the disposition 
of my heart ever since I gave myself to Jesus, and such I trust 
will be my character and such will be my record when I ap- 
pear before him for judgment. Men who have taught me. 
men who have led me, men who have moulded all my charac- 
ter, men who could have averted this terrible evil and saved 
the Church this awful responsibility that is upon her to-day, 
are the very men who have compelled me to come before you, 
and the men who have compelled you to sit in judgment" up- 
on me. And now, Fathers and Brethren, I do not mean to be 
long this morning. You have had a very full and free pre- 
sentation of our case. The brethren who have gone before 
me have been very generous to me. Perhaps (indeed I know) 
they knew the truth with reference to me. I made no prepa- 
ration for this defence, and those going before have gathered 
up and presented the things which I deem necessary to come 
before this Court; and I thank them for it. The harvesters 
have gathered all, and those of us who come to glean after 
them will have but few straws to gather. 
It is my privilege, having endorsed the appeal and com- 



112 



STENOGRAPHIC REPORT. 



plaint of Kev. W. L. C. Samson, and having concurred in his 
appeal and complaint, to take up and discuss the various 
articles or items of that appeal and complaint. But Brethren, 
as this has been done so fully and so clearly, I will waive my 
right to speak on this particular part of the case, reserving 
however, if you will, the privilege of replying to those who 
will appear before you shortly to defend the action of the 
Pittsburgh Presbytery, and 1 will come to my own personal 
appeal to you with reference to the position in which I stand. 

The first point in my appeal is this : There is no evidence 
that I have been guilty of violating any law or practice of the 
Church, or of offensively influencing my congregation or 
others against any such law or practice. With reference 
to all the articles that have been spread abroad through 
the Reformed Presbyterian Church by means of her organs, 
or through other columns, I declare here and now that 
personally I am responsible for none of them. With reference 
even to thos'e anonymous communications that some may 
suppose may have come from my pen I want to assure you, 
Fathers and Brethren, that I father none of them. Further 
than that, I have not in my public services in the sanctuary 
Or in the social services of the prayer meeting lifted my voice 
against any of the principles or practices of the Reformed 
Presbyterian Church. I believe the principles of our Church 
are the principles of God's Word. I believe that the personal 
application of those principles is a duty that devolves upon 
every man. And, Brethren, I want to say to you while you 
gave me the right to vote for a Constitutional Amendment 
I did not cast my vote. I have no confession to make to you 
to-day, that I at any time in my short experience cast a ballot 
under the Constitution of the United States. I want to say 
further, that in my official capacity as Moderator of the 
Session of the East End Reformed Presbyterian Church, I 
have never allowed any man, or any woman either, to unite 
with that congregation without bringing before their minds 
and demanding of them an assent to the manner in which we 
make application of the principles which we profess. 

And I now go further than that and make this declaration : 
I have not offensively influenced any man against the prin- 
ciples of our Church. By that term I want you to understand 
that I have not made it my business to go in and out among 
the members of my congregation and speak of these things ; I 
have not made it my business to talk of these matters with 
those with whom I came in contact. And I am free to say to 
you to-day, Fathers and Brethren, that so far as my memory 
serves me I never broached these questions to any man. I 
have talked them over but I have never introduced them as a 
subject of conversation. I have been engaged in the ministry 
of Christ. I have had the burden to bear of presenting the 
truths of the Gospel of Jesus, and Brethren, that has been my 



THURSDAY, JUKE 4. 



US 



chief concern. You know, those of you especially who are 
in the ministry of the Gospel, what it is to preach the GospeL 
You know that not only in your studies among your books, 
but when traveling by the way, the thoughts that crowd on 
your mind, the thoughts that have the uppermost position in 
your mind, are thoughts with reference to preaching the 
Gospel of Jesus. And these are the thoughts that have 
crowded my mind so fully that unless other subjects were 
suggested I have little or nothing to say. 

.But to go on, 1 make in the second article of my appeal a 
very broad statement. I have been and am true and loyal t@ 
all the distinctive principles and practices of the Church as 
set forth in the subordinate standards of the Church and als© 
have given due subordination in the Lord to the authority of 
Synod. Brethren, bear in mind that statement is over tny 
signature; bear in mind that 1 have introduced that statement 
into a court constituted in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, 
and. realizing these things, you must be impressed with the 
fact that what I have written I have written because 1 believe 
it to be true. I might say something without such a solemn 
place that I could notst and over: but. Brethren, I dare not say 
anything in the appeal I sent up to you that did not express 
the feelings of my heart; that did not meet with the approval 
of my conscience. 

In the closing of my address in my trial in the Presbytery I 
took hold of the Bible ; I placed on the Bible the Confession of 
Faith; above the Confession of Faith I laid the Testimony 
of the Reformed Presbyterian Church, above all I placed the 
Book of Discipline, and I said to that Court, as I say to you 
to-day. on this I stand, so help me God ; I cannot do otherwise. 
And, Brethren, whatever your decision in this case may be, 
if it is your will that I shall go from among you. I want to 
say now that go where I will. I will take with me all the 
obligations that I assumed when I became a minister in the 
Reformed Presbyterian Church. I will take with me all the 
principles that I gave my assent to. and that I have defended 
during my short ministry in this Church. 

You may say that I have not, contrary to my statement, 
given due subordination in the Lord to the authority of 
Synod. You may bring up as evidence against me the fact 
that Synod at its last meeting in Xew York passed a resolu- 
tion to the effect that there shall be no more discussion; to 
the effect that there shall be no more writting in our maga- 
zines against any of the principles or doctrines or the applica- 
tion of the principles and doctrines of the Reformed Pres- 
byterian Church. Brethren, I have been true to that, except 
in so far as you may declare that the East End Platform was 
a violation of that Declaration or law, if you will, of Synod. 
But I do not believe that that law that the Synod of the 



114 



STENOGRAPHIC REPORT* 



Reformed Presbyterian Church enacted in New York has the 
authority of the Word of God. 

I believe that I have the right, a God given right, — ay, an 
American right, — to speak my mind if I come to a certain 
conclusion that any principle, or any application of any prin- 
ciple, is contrary to the will of Christ. And I say to you now, 
that that law enacted by the Synod of the Reformed Pres- 
byterian Church one year ago is against the liberty of the 
sons of God in which I as a member of the body of Christ am 
to-day. God has given me liberty to think; God has given 
me the right to conclude, and the same God has given me 
the right to speak my conclusions. And the God who gives 
me these rights gives to no court of his house the right, to 
demand that I shall forego these rights; and until you re- 
scind that action of Syncd last year I want you to understand 
that I for one believe you have violated the liberty that God 
has given his children. 

Now I come to the third article in my appeal and which 
you will notice is a very broad article. The origination of 
this charge and my trial under the same in all its stages has 
shown, as I humbly believe, a spirit alike unpresbyterian, 
unprotestant and unchristian, in expecting and exacting from 
me submission to the decisions of Synod as an absolute law or 
imperative obligation which must be accepted as the authori- 
tative rule of practical conduct if not of conscience. Brethren, 
I do not wish to weary you. The brethren who have gone 
before me have opened up this case very clearly, and it seems 
hardly necessary for me to go over the ground which they 
have traveled merely to reiterate their statements. Never- 
theless, lest you may think that I have not a case, I believe I 
will have to trespass a little longer on your patience, and 
present my notion of what this third article of my appeal 
says : 

First, with reference to the origination of this charge. It 
originated, first of all, in the calls for the Elders' Convention 
which met in a sister city, if my memory serves me right, in 
August of last year. After leaving the East End Church at 
the conclusion of the conference which we held on July 15th, 
I banished from my mind, — or rather it did not take any will 
power to banish it, it vanished itself.— all notion of ideas 
or concerns with reference to our East End Meeting. Shortly 
after that I took my departure for the east to spend a short 
vacation. And while there, I was surprised beyond measure 
when a paper was handed me with the announcement of the 
Elders' Convention and with the reasons for this Convention 
printed upon that paper and given as being: "Because of an 
organization formed in the East End for the purpose of 
destroy ing the Reformed Presbyterian Church." 

Brethren, that is the first time I ever dreamed that any 
man thought that the purpose of the East End Meeting was 



THURSDAY, JUNE 4. 



115 



the dissolution of the Reformed Presbyterian Church. And I 
want to say more, just here, that the man that framed that 
■call for the Elders 1 Convention, or the men who framed it, 
if they read the East End Platform, as it was printed in the 
circular formed by those who met in that conference or as it 
appeared in the daily press, maliciously misrepresented the 
object or the purpose of that Platform. At the head of that 
Platform in letters so large almost that any man might read 
them is the declaration that '-This Platform is put out for the 
purpose of uniting the divided body of Christ." 1 And the 
man who says, that I had any other purpose in the printing 
of that Platform than the objec t it declares itself, that man 
charges me falsely; that man inpugns my motives; that man 
condemns me as a liar in the sight of God and men. That 
and that alone was the purpose of printing the Platform of 
the East End Conference. And, Brethren when the churches 
of Christ come together the articles of that Platform are the 
articles on which I want to see her unite and on no others. 
Why"? Because those articles refer to books, refer to testimony, 
refer to confessions, the contents of which I believe to be the 
will of God as he has revealed it to us. Now that, I believe, 
was the meaning of this charge that has been preferred 
against us, and on which we have been found guilty, 

Another element or another thing leading up to the for- 
mulation of these libels was certain memorials. I refer to 
the memorials that were sent up to our regular meeting of 
Presbytery on the 2nd Tuesday of October, from some of our 
rural congregations. In these memorials or in some of them 
is also declared the fact that an organization had been formed 
to disrupt or disorganize the Reformed Presbyterian Church, 
and recommended Presbytery that they proceed against us, 
giving us one of three alternatives to accept. Now just at 
this point I w r ant to call your attention to a fact, and I want to 
keep this fact in mind when you come to render your decision 
on this case. I am going to speak plainly ; I am going to hew 
to the mark let the chips fall where they will. In the 
memorial sent up from Beaver Falls Congregation the fact of 
an organization being formed in the East End to disrupt the 
Covenanter Church is stated in plain language. Over against 
that I want to bring to your minds this thought. The Moder- 
ator of the Session of the Beaver Falls Congregation, the 
Secretary or the Chairman of the Committe on Discipline in 
the Presbytery in the regular meeting of the Presbytery, the 
Secretary of the Judicial Committee that brought us before 
them, if possible to settle this matter in a harmonious way, 
and I believe that the other man who will be to-day before 
you to defend this action of Presbytery, all declared that they 
never kney that an organization had been formed until those 
of us who were before the Judicial Committee and afterwards 
appearel before the Presbytery declared that there was an 



116 



STENOGRAPHIC REPORT. 



organization. Xow. Fathers and Brethren, what right has 
any Elders' Convention, what right has any congregation, to 
memorialize a Presbytery with reference to a fact about 
which they know nothing? Is not that misrepresentation? Is- 
not that religion rim mad? And I want to say further, that 
the man who wrote the memorial from the Beaver Falls 
Congregation is present to-day. and that the memorial is in 
his own handwriting : and yet when Mr. Temple got up on the 
floor of the Presbytery and declared there had been an 
organization formed in the East End. this same man rose to- 
his feet and said: "That puts a new face on the question; I 
would not have accepted the basis of union in the Judicial 
Committee if I had known that your organization had been 
formed in the East End Meeting." If you can reconcile those 
things I want you to do it. I am standing and pleading for 
my rights as a servant of God : and while I may do you an 
injury in our Church, my brother. I want not to do you an 
injury before our God. 

Here come the memorials. The memorials are referred to 
the Committee on Discipline. The Committee of Discipline 
bring in recommendations. The first recommendation is,. 
•'That an hour be set apart for prayer." which was entered 
into in the true spirit. I had a trouble on my soul at that 
moment, and before that season of prayer began I made 
known my trouble. I told that Court I wanted to get all the 
devil out of me there was in me, and I did before I went into 
those services. After the season for prayer the second recom- 
mendation was brought up by the Court, which was. "That 
an opportunity be granted "to the young men to make what 
statements they please with reference to this case, if possible 
to reach a common settlement." This may not be the exact 
language of the recommendation itself : I took the contents of 
the wording of it. In answer to this invitation of the Court I 
amongst others made a short address to their. And I want to 
tell you. Fathers and Brethren, that the only thing that I said 
in that address in reference to which they could lay their 
hands upon me was a simple confession that I had been at the 
East End Meeting, that I had been a partner in the forming 
of that Platform, and that is al 1 . But that was not all that I 
did say. I took up the declarations with reference to church 
union in the Confession of Faith, in the Eeformed Pres- 
byterian Testimony and in the Covenant formulated and 
solemnly sworn by this Court in the year 1871 and from these 
declarations I argued before that Court that 1 and they and 
all of us were under the most solemn obligations to work, 
labor and pray for the visible unity of Christ. That was the 
burden of the address that I made before that Committee. 
Brethren, I want you to know this, that that address is the 
only evidence they had upon which to libel me. 

After the address there was quite a number who expressed 



THUKSDAY. J L'NE 4. 



117 



various opinions and were ready to come to certain action; 
somehow or other they were unable to harmonize, a id as the 
result of this want of harmony a fourth recommendation was 
taken up. And that recommendation I believe to-day, — and 
I know that I will carry this belief with me as long as I live, 
and will carry it with me to the throne of God, — was a recom- 
mendation that a Commission be appointed to settle this mat- 
ter in conference with the young; men. Now, Brethren, I am 
not going- to charge anybody with changing the Minutes or 
the language of that recomin3ndation. But I want you to 
know that that is my belief, aid [ say it conscious of the fact 
that I am standing in the divine presence. I answer, to that 
recommendation a Co:nmittee or Commission was appointed. 
This Commission met liter on in the Central Reform id Pres- 
byterian Church. Allegheny, in the morning; and this Com- 
mission or Committee, whichever you call it. formed or 
framed a basis of settlement — a basis that met with the hearty 
approval of every member of that Commission or Committee. 
We reeeived notices to a )pear before that Commission on the 
afternoon of that same day. We did not know that they had 
met in the morning. We never dreamed they were going to 
meet, and I confess I was surprised when I went in in the 
after part of the day and saw or had presented to me a basis 
that had been approved by this Committee. After a great 
deal of discussion pro and con, and kindly expressions one to 
another, we all agreed to accept that b isis of set.lement. 
There was a good deal of insistence brought to bear upon us 
to sign our na nes to that basis of settle. nent. 

Brethren, if the defendants in this case endeavor to nuke a 
point out of the fact that we refused to sigu ttiat basis, I want 
to tell you beforehand that the ground of my refusal was de- 
clared to them to be, as I declare it to you to-day to be the 
fact, that I hai grown beyond that d ty when T would hive 
demanded of me that my signature be attached to an article 
or basis to which [ agreed. I held to them that as a Christian 
man my declaration was of as much value as m} r signature. 
After this agreement had been reached on all sides, there was 
a happy farewell. Brethren. I was happy. Mv trouble in 
regard to this trial that I had anticipated was before ine was 
all gone. The burdens that rested upon me were lifted and I 
felt that what might hive beeu an awful trial to the Reformed 
Presbyterian Church had been averted. And now. Brethren., 
before we departed, the members of that Committee attested 
their faith towards us and their agreement that is in this b isis of 
settlement, and gave to us one and all the right hand of fel- 
lowship. One member of that Commission who will be here 
to defend Presbytery to-day. made a remark to this effect: 
have helped yon out of this difficulty; if ever E get in 
trouble I want you to help me out of it." To this we all 
agreed. Another member of this Commission who will appear 



118 



STENOGRAPHIC REPORT. 



before you to-day to defend the action of Presbytery, when 
he took my hand in his said, "I thank God you men are going 
to stay in the Reformed Presbyterian Church." 

Brethren, there was a covenant entered into with all the 
solemnities of any covenant ever sworn in fatherland. A 
covenant engagement as solemn as that Covenant to which 
they will appeal to-day in vindication of their course! They 
were bound to me in covenant engagement. Ay : and I was 
bound to them and together we were bound to that basis of 
settlement. Now what is a covenant? I think I can remem- 
ber the definition given by my Professor, D. B. Wilson. I 
think it was he, if it was not it was his contemporary, the late 
Dr S-oare. He said. "A covenant is an agreement entered 
into between two or more parties to do or to refrain from do- 
ing certain things."' This is a covenant. Now the covenant 
entered into by that Commission was to stand by this basis of 
settlement. And yet shortly afterwards I received notifica- 
tion of a meeting of Presbytery. And what*? I do not believe 
any man who has not had a like experience with me can im- 
agine my surprise when the man who took my hand and said 
he thanked God I was going to stay in the Reformed Presby- 
terian Church was the man who violated the covenant 
entered into in that meeting in the Central Allegheny 
Church. That is the man who stood before that Presbytery 
who said, '-Not as a member of the Committee, but as a Pres- 
byter I present this series of resolutions." Oh, wonder of all 
wond rs! Brethren. Paul says. "Great is the mystery of god- 
liness. God manifest in the rlesh"'— one nature, one person and 
yet two things. Ah. but here is a greater mystery. Xot as 
a commissioner, not as a committeeman but as a Presbyter — 
two persons represented in this man? Behold it! Now they 
will tell you that we repudiated that basis of settlement. I 
atk you n all honor and candor, when one man violates his 
part of the contract, is any orher man who accepts that con- 
tract bound to his part of it? Xo. A man violates his part of 
that basis of settlement. Am I bound to hbld on to that 
settlement? Xo, Brethren, and I thank God to-day that I am 
no i bound 'o that settlement because of the infidelity of the 
men who were the framers of that settlement. And I also 
want to say this to you. Brethren, that I am ready, should 
this court be willing, for the peace and welfare of ourZion to 
accept that basis of agreement. Ay. and if this court be ready 
to demand of me my signature. I am ready to put my name to 
that basis of settlement and agree to it with the explanation 
I demanded in the Committee on Discipline. I have appealed 
here from conduct unpresby terian. unprotestant and unchris- 
tian: 1 have presented befoie you the facts with reference to 
the libel that was preferred against me. The first was a call 
for the Elders* Convention. That ca'l I claim was unpresby - 
terian, was unprotestant, was unchristian in that it charges 



THURSDAY, JUNE 4. 



119 



something the men who framed that call knew nothing about 
by their "own confession, or the confession of those with 
whom they were associated. Fathers and Brethren, 1 submit 
to you if those ministers who met with us in the Pittsburgh 
Presbytery did not know that we had effected an organization 
in the East End: how are the Elders who were supposed to 
have framed this call to the Elders' Convention, to know that 
there was an organization formed there V That at least has the 
appearance of unchristian conduct: of unpresbyterian and 
unprotestant procedure. Again. Fathers and Brethren. I sub- 
mit, how are the men who framed these memorials and con- 
fessed that they did not know that an organization was formed, 
to prove to you that they have been guilty of no unchristian 
conduct, no unprotestant or unpresbyterian behavior towards 
us? And now to go on (for I am wasting more time than I 
thought I would), the libel was preferred against us. This 
libel was unchristian and unprotestant and unpresbyterian. 
There was no reference in the libel to any declaration of the 
divine Word to which we had gone contrary, and that we 
believe to be the book of appeal of the Reformed Presby- 
terian Church. There was only in that libel a declaration 
with reference to our having followed divisive courses because 
of our Meeting in the East'End on the the 22nd. or there- 
abouts, of July : and the statement was, that we had violated 
our Covenant engagements because we had formulated a cer- 
tain article in that Platform. 

Xow. Brethren, that article has been before you. It con- 
tains nothing contrary to the declarations of our Testimony ; 
it contains nothing contrary to the declarations of the Con- 
fession of Faith or the Book of Discipline. It binds every 
man who is to be received into our denomination or the body 
of Christ visible, to accept and believe everything that those 
books contain. And in the light of the plain declaration of 
that article, of that Platform, they libel us for the heinous sin 
and scandal of pursuing divisive courses. That is not Chris- 
tian: that is unchristian, that is unpresbyterian. 

But now to go on. It was unchristian, unprotestant and 
unpresbyterian for a court which was constituted in the name 
of Christ to allow them to sit in judgment on our case who 
had manifestly prejudged it. It is hardly necessary for me to 
go over this question. You have heard how those eleven men 
who were interested, or who signed the call for the Elders' 
Convention, sat in judgment on us. You have heard how 
that one man in explaining his vote said that he thought we 
were worthy of suspension because we were members of a 
secret society. Now I want to bring before your minds an- 
other fact that was brought to the attention of that court. 
One of these men who signed the call for the Elders' Con- 
vention. — I mean the man who represented the session of the 
New Castle congregation. W. C. Leslie (I think those are his 



120 



STENOGRAPHIC REPORT. 



Initials), in the midst of the jirring and worrying that was 
carried on with reference to our case, at one point of the pro- 
ceedings, arose and said, '-Fathers we are wasting time; I 
had better be at home selling goods. I am ready to suspend 
these men now/' Brethren, that was before we had uttered 
a word in our defence. After he had made that declaration I 
arose on the floor of the Presbytery and told that man he be- 
longed not to the liberty church, known as the Reformed 
Presbyterian Church, but to that church which rules the 
consciences of men, namely the Catholic Church. And yet 
that man was allowed to sit during all the proceedings of our 
trial, and that man was allowed to cast his vote against us, 
thereby using his influence to suspend us from the ministry. 
Why did the Court allow these things? In the name of Uod I 
know not. unless it be to spread abroad throughout the 
Church the declaration of how unanimous the Pittsburgh 
Presbytery was in this action which they took against us. 
You have seen from these declarations that have been made 
from this Platform that it could not be otherwise than a unan- 
imous verdict against us, when men were allowed to sit in 
judgment and cast their votes against us who had declared 
again and again that we ought to be put out of the ministry of 
the Reformed Presbyterian Church, and one of these had said 
he was ready to suspend us before we were tried. Is that un- 
presby terian ; is that unchristian"? 

Now, Fathers and Brethren, I shall not refer to the sentence 
that was imposed upon us, except to say that in suspending 
us upon the charge which they had preferred against us and 
©f which they had found us guilty, they not only suspended 
ns, but they suspended all laws founded on the Word of God. 
Ay, and they have suspended the Covenanter Church between 
heaven and earth as an object of ridicule to the Christian 
world. 

I am done, but ye know not what a burden I have had to 
lear. You know not what trials I have passed through. 
Talk about sleepless nights; my eyes have refused to close 
BT&ny and many a time. There are things that are sweet to 
as with which we are called at times to part. God help us all 
who need indeed his care. Brethren. I know the Shepherd 
Foves his sheep. 

The MODERATOR : Rev. J. R. J. Milligan now has the 
privilege of addressing the Court in support of his appeal and 
complaint ao-ainst the action of Pittsburgh Presb}'terv. 

Rev. J. R. J. MILLIGAN: Dear Fathers and Brethren, I 
hope that you will be able to keep these cases separate. 1 
want to say, by way of explanation, that the first person who 
presented himself here to prosecute his appeal and complaint 
was Rev A. W. McClurkin. He and I were tried at the same 
meeting of Presbytery. I was tried last. Those who have 
followed Rev. A. W. McClurkin were all tried together in a 



THURSDAY, JUNE 4. 



121 



group. I was tried at the fourth meeting- of Presbytery. 
They were tried at the third. Neither A. W. McClurkin nor 
myself was at the second meeting of Presbytery, and all this 
trouble about withdrawing the assent from the basis of agree- 
ment was at the second meeting; an'd, therefore, personally 
w r e know nothing about it, except what we get from the Min- 
utes. With this explanation, and stating further that I hope 
you will be able to go back and place me beside Mr. McClur- 
kin, and then you will perhaps understand more clearly the 
statements we together make. I propose to confine myself 
very closely to what I have written. So much has been said 
on all the points that might be brought up that I have cut out 
a, great deal of what I had written, and will only speak of that 
which I feel ought to be presented in connection with my own 
•case. And I wish to say this : that in coming before you with 
my appeals and complaint (really they are all complaints), 
against Pittsburgh Presbytery, I think I am sensible of the 
responsibility which lies upon you in deciding upon the 
justice or injustice of the lower court. Did I not, in my very 
heart, believe that injustice had been done me, I would not be 
knocking at your gate. But I am here seeking justice of you, the 
"highest Court in our Church, praying that you may be guided 
by the Spirit of God. I suppose I need not tell this court that 
this is not a question for the Conservatives and the Liberals. 
The line cannot be drawn there. The merits of the question 
before the Covenanter Church are not to be discussed here. It 
is a matter of justice or injustice. Xo man has a right to say, 
u my sentiments are so and so; I will vote so and so.' ' The 
merits of the case are not here at all. Let that be borne in 
mind. 

I complain of the action of Pittsburgh Presbytery. 

First. Because the admissibility of the libel was sustain- 
ed : in that. 1 . When there were no witnesses to prove the 
Specifications of the libel. On page 78. sec. 9, of the Book of 
Discipline, we read: • t It is just and requisite that the names 
of all the witnesses known to the prosecutor at the time of the 
serving of the libel, who are to be adduced against the ac- 
cused, be placed upon the libel previously to its being first 
served upon him.'* We look at the libel and read it over from 
first to last, from beginning to end. and there is not a witness 
named in it, not one. Nothing which is charged against me 
has a witness named in the libel whereby it may be proved. 
The purpose in having witnesses specified, and that which 
they are to prove mentioned, is that the defendant may refute 
the thing to be proven, or show the witness incompetent, and 
because the Court is required to give its decision on what the 
prosecution proves by competent witnesses at the time of the 
trial and in the presence of the Court. 

You who have Books of Discipline, look at page 78, sec. 29: 
"Xo hearsay or second hand testimony (which is the same 



122 



STENOGRAPHIC REPORT. 



thing) is to be received unless that which goes to prove the 
statements of deceased persons who would have been credible 
witnesses."* If some person tells me something, I cannot ap- 
pear as a witness as long as that man is living; if he dies, I 
may be a competent witness, but the Court can take into con- 
sideration how much weight to attach to even that testimony. 
You find that in sec. 28, page 78. Sec. 29, on the same page, 
says: "No private knowledge possessed by members of the 
judicatory shall be suffered to influence the decision, as that 
must be based entirely upon the evidence before the Court." 7 

Thus we see that every fact which is to be used against the 
accused must be mentioned in the libel. The witness to prove 
that fact must be named in the libel before it is served upon 
the accused. A member of the Court may have known every 
fact mentioned in the libel, by one whom he considered truth- 
ful. But that must not be suffered to influence his decision, 
nor could his knowledge, gained in that way, be accepted by 
the Court as competent testimony, unless the one who in- 
formed him were dead. For everything in the Court which 
can be allowed to affect the decision must be proven in the 
Court by a competent witness, named beforehand in the libeL 
For until this be done it is hearsay or secondhand testimony, 
or private knowledge, which the Book says "shall not be suf- 
fered to influence the decision."' 

The fact, then, that this libel has not a single witness named 
in it renders it inadmissable ; as a libel, to be admissible, it 
must have all the wittnesses placed upon it previously to its- 
being served upon the accused. But without doubt the defence 
will cite you to the statements in the libel which are to the 
effect that all these charges mentioned in the libel have been 
admitted by me at the first meeting of Presbytery, and conse- 
quently the Court needed no further testimony. I ask this> 
Court again to look at that libel and see whether those refer- 
ences are in the nature of evidence or in the nature of a* 
charge. "As declared by you on October loth, to which you 
did give your approval, in violation of your ordination vow." 
1 think they are charges ; they look as much like charges as. 
evidence. But, if used as evidence it should have been so 
stated in the libel. They should at least have had the Min- 
utes of Pittsburgh Presbytery as proof that we made state- 
ments. 

You know the other evening when Mr. McClurkin was on 
trial, there was a question taken up in regard to a certain Min- 
ute to this effect: that the following persons, naming the 
seven, attempted a defence of their connection with the East 
End Meeting and Platform. Does that say that they said they 
attended a meeting? Does that say they said they published a* 
platform or circulated it? "Their connection" is all it says. 
Why, their connection, so far as that Minute goes, might 
merely have meant they entertained some of those who were 



THURSDAY. JUNE 4. 



at that conference. But they did not have even that state- 
ment in the libel, and thus the libel is wholly and totally 
without any proof. 

I maintain, however, that even those statements, made 
October loth. 1890. at the meeting of Presbytery referred to 
in the libel, were not admissible as testimony. It is a general 
principle in law that statements made for the purpose of set- 
tling a case can not be used as testimony on the trial of that 
case. Let me tell you how I came to make the statements at 
the first meeting of Presbytery. I will read you two items of 
the report of the Committee on Discipline. They come in 
that report after the Committee has set forth that, as the 
senders forth of the Platform had been designated in the 
papers as the "seventeen."" "the minority at last Synod."" 
"our brethren of the minority."' -those attending the East 
End Meeting.*" (fee, they found our names among the -seven- 
teen'* and "minority" on the Minute- of Synod, and hence our 
names are mentioned as possibly the guilty parties. Then this 
Committee recommended (page 132. of the Minutes of Pres- 
bytery) these two points: "1. That the consideration of their 
report be preceded by a reason of reverent devotion and 
prayer to God. during which we engage ourselves to draw 
very near to the Searcher of all our hearts, and to cherish the 
most tender and fraternal regard among ourselves, and that 
we will faithfully follow the light which God shall vouchsafe 
to us in answer to our humble prayers. 2. That following 
this hour of prayer an opportunity shall be given to the 
brethren named to make such statements in regard to the 
matters set forth in these memorials as they "think best: 
that if possible by the most frank, open and candid expression 
of views and purposes we may come to see eye to eye. and 
mutual confidence be restored."" Brethren, that season of 
prayer was ergaged in. I myself was asked by the Moderator 
to lead the meeting in prayer, and as best I could I plead with 
God for light and guidance. Then when the hour of prayer 
was concluded I was the first to come forward. I had faith 
in those men. that they wanted to settle this matter like 
Christians. I knew that I had done nothing intentionally to 
mar the peace of Zion. nothing I was ashamed of. and so I 
went forward and said what I thought was lest: and I am 
sure that 1 was -frank, open and candid." 1 was so because 
I thought I was dealing with honest men. Would it have 
been better had I not been so frank, open and candid? Would 
it? One of the seven, not having so much confidence in the 
men as I had. when he rose to make his statement said, he be- 
lieved it was a scheme, and that the Committee would use our 
statements against us. at which the Chairman of the Com- 
mittee arose and said, he thought the insinuation was unkind- 
But. gentlemen, you see for yourselves, if you will read the 
libel, that whether unkind or not. it is the very thing the Com- 



124 



STENOGRAPHIC REPORT. 



mittee did. If to insinuate that the Committee would use our 
statements against us was unkind, then how shall we design- 
ate the act, when our statements are used against us? 

I want you to notice : — 1st. We were invited to make state- 
ments, so that by a frank, open and candid expression of 
views and purposes mutual confidence would be restored. 
2nd. The statement that it was unkind to insinuate that the 
■Committee was going to use our statements against us was a 
virtual agreement that our statements would not be used as 
evidence. 3rd. The fact that prayer was offered and de- 
votional exercises engaged in for nearly an hour prior to our 
"having the opportunity to m ike statements, for the purpose 
of '-seeing eye to eye" and "restoring confidence," was a fur- 
ther pledge that it was not a scheme. 

This then shows: — 1st. That our statements were made for 
the purpose of settling the matter, and from a legal stand- 
point could not be used as evidence. Would not that render 
the libel inadmissible? 2nd. That morally the Presbytery 
was bound not to use our statements as evidence. Or it 
shows: 3rd. That Presbytery, in its committee, recognized 
neither legality in the case nor moral obligation, and that the 
recommendation and invitation that we should make state- 
ments was a scheme for the purpose of accomplishing that 
which they could not accomplish in any other way. 

Brethren, from a legal standpoint, and from a virtual moral 
obligation, our statements could not be used as evidence; 
"hence it renders the libel inadmissible, as this was the only 
pretence of testimony which the libel contained. This brings 
me to notice : 

Second. That I made no admission at the meeting of 
Presbytery referred to in the libel, either of the purpose or 
iact of following divisive courses from the doctrine or order 
of the Church. That I did mike statements at the first 
meeting, I did not denv, when I cams to be put on trial, 
nor did I admit. It was three months between the two 
meetings of Presbytery or just about three months. The 
statements which I made at Presbytery were for the purpose 
of settlement. I was under no obligation to verify the state- 
ments in the libel, but felt that they were under obligation to 
prove what I said ; hence I made no admission. Therefore, 
when I refused to admit the specifications in the libel, it was 
necessary to have testimony. This would be necessary even 
If the Court was made up of exactly the same members as at 
the previous meeting. If the members of the fourth meeting 
of Presbytery had been the very same as were at the first 
meeting it still would have been necessary. But. to add to 
the necessity for having witnesses, there were five members of 
the Court which was trying me who were not present at the 
meeting of Presbytery referred to in the libel, and these could 
not know what I had said, or whether I had said anything, 



THURSDAY, JUNE 4. 



125V 



except from hearsay or secondhand testimony which the Book 
says shall not be suffered to influence the decision, nor shall 
private knowledge be suffered to influence the decision. I 
asked the Court, in view of these facts, to bring forward their 
witnesses, if they had any, and prove to the whole Court, and 
especially to these five, that I had said what the libel alleges- 
to have been said by me. They did not do it. They could 
not do it for they had not specified in the libel the name of 
the witness who would testify to my statements, and no one 
can testify, as I have read to yor, if his name is not mentioned 
in the libel. Hence the libel was inadmissible, for there was 
no witness to prove what they expected me to admit. That 
the Court allowed these five members to sit in judgment in 
my case and vote against me, was unjust, is evident from the 
action of the Court later on. For when the case of A. W. 
McClurkin came up, which was immediately after mine, these 
men asked to be excused from voting on his case, and Pres- 
bytery granted their request. In the records of Presbytery, 
page 155, you read this record : "The following were excused 
from voting, as they were not present at the meeting of Pres- 
bytery referred to in the libel as being the one at which Rev. 
A. W . McClurkin had made statements as to his connection, 
with the East End Meeting and Platform, viz: William 
Blair, H. H. George, J. L. McCartney, William Pearce, and 
W. D. Shaw." Notice, the meeting of Presbytery referred to 
in the libel against Mr. McClurkin was the very same meeting 
referred to in the libel against me, and if Presbytery saw the 
propriety of excusing these men from voting on Mr. Mc- 
Clurkin*s case, because they were not present at the meeting 
of Presbytery referred to in the libel, then how T could they 
vote on my case? Both of us were charged with making 
statements to the same effect. Yet. Presbytery saw the 
propriety of excusing them from voting on one case, and the 
very same circumstances exist in the other case, viz : they 
were not at the meeting of Presbytery referred to in the libel. 
Does not this show that in neither case was the libel admis- 
sible? Is it not an admission that there was not a witness to 
prove one single specification or charge in the libel? Hence, 
I appeal and complain against the admissibility of the libel 
being sustained, because there were no witnesses to the speci- 
fications in the libel, and when even that which they claimed 
as testimony was really one of the charges; and when even if 
intended as testimony, it should not be admitted either 
from a legal or moral standpoint; and when I positively deny 
having made statements which involve me in the admission of 
the purpose or fact of following divisive courses. 

II. But I appeal and complain, again, because the relevancy 
of the libel was sustained on the ground that following divisive 
courses was censurable. So much has been said in regard to 
the relevancy, and when, as you have already heard read from 



126 



STENOGRAPHIC REPORT. 



the Minutes, the Moderator refused to give any ruling- except 
to read from the Book, I will pass this whole question of 
relevancy by, and come to my third point. 

III. I complain that I was convicted of the sin and scandal 
of following a divisive course without a fair trial. 1st. "In 
that two members of the Presbytery voting against me were 
not at the meeting of Presbytery named in the libel and could 
Tmow nothing regarding the alleged admissions, except from 
hearsay.' * Xow when I prepared my appeal and complaint 
I did not have the Minutes, and I only remembered that two 
members not at the fall meeting voted against me. When I 
obtained the Minutes I found there we four. Four members 
voted against me that never heard what I said at the first 
meeting, and never had a particle of proof of what I said. 
These, as their names are found in the Minutes, were : H. H. 
Oeorge. J. L. McCartney. William Pearce, the elder from 
Beaver Falls, and W. D. Shaw, the elder from Xew Alexandria. 
(Page 155, Minutes of Pittsburgh Presbytery.) 

It may be said that these members not voting would not 
have changed the decision; that the libel would still have 
been sustained. I grant it. But I ask if it is fair for a court 
to allow men to sit in judgment and vote on a case when the 
court knows that these men have not one particle of evidence 
before them on which to base their decision except hearsay 
or secondhand testimony, or private knowledge which, the 
Book states, ''shall not be suffered to influence the decision.*' 
The attention of Presbytery was called to this matter when 
the admissibility was under discussion. The Presbytery 
judged them competent to sit as members of the Court. I 
asked, how could they decide on my case? While I maintained 
that it was necessary to prove to every member of the Court 
the facts or specifications of the libeL yet it is most certain 
that the persons not at the meeting of Presbytery referred to 
in the libel should have the facts proven to them by competent 
witnesses, or be adjudged incompetent to sit as judges in the 
case. These men, before God, are guilty of an injustice to 
me, and Presbytery is accessor}' to that injustice, abetted 
their crime, and are to-day guilty of violating the very aim 
and end of discipline, viz: to bring the offender to reforma- 
tion. I put it mil Uy, very mildly, when I say it was unfair for 
them to do it, and unfair for Presbytery to allow them, espe< i- 
ally when they asked to be excused from voting o i Mr. Mc- 
Clurkin's case, and Presbytery granted their request, "because 
they were -not present at the meeting referred to in the libel 
as the one at which Rev. McClurkin had made statements as 
to his connection with the East End Meeting.'' Yet I made 
my statements at the very same meeting of Presbytery that 
Mr. McClurkin did. 

2nd. There was no evidence that t ever named the Platform 
elsewhere than in the Presbytery at its demand and request, 



THURSDAY, JUNE 4. 



127 



or that I ever circulated it or advocated any position named 
in it, or in anywise pursued a divisive course in connection 
therewith. I want to modify the statement by taking out the 
word ^demand'" and leaving- it '-at its request. v So far as 
this is concerned it might be settled by simply reaffirming 
what I have already said. There was no evidence to prove 
anything; but furthermore, the Presbytery could not prove it 
if thay had tried to. I did not follow a divisive course with 
the East End Platform. The prosecutor in my case was one 
of the listeners at my preaching, and he did free me from the 
charge, or whatever you may call it, of preaching the East 
End Platform principles in my pulpit. 'My elder, who voted 
against me straight, said the same thing in regard to my 
preaching, and the only way that Presbytery secured my 
name was by going to the records of Synod and finding I 
voted w r ith the minority, and in favor of union, at last Synod, 
Again, I ask if the trial was a fair one, since without a 
particle of evidence that I hid followed a divisive course with 
reference to the principles of the East End Platform, they 
iound me guilty of following a divisive course. But. I 
complain and appeal from an unfair trial, 

3rd.. Because there was no evidence that I was connected 
with an organization which had planned or purposed fol- 
lowing a divisive course. That I was a member of an organ- 
ization which had for its object the overthrow of the Church, 
was publicly charged against us. (See Minutes of proceedings 
and call for Elders' Convention.) And the prosecutor made 
that assertion in the trial. But there never was brought for- 
ward one particle of evidence to prove it, — not one particle ; 
and besides we were not charged in the libel with having an 
organization, but that Presbytery considered there was such 
an organization, and that this influenced the decision was 
believed by us all along, and our belief was strengthened 
when we read the Pastoral Letter. (See March number R. P. 
& C. page 90.) This letter say: 4; The following facts also 
came before the Court : 4th. That the East End Meeting as 
proved by its own official minutes effected a permament 
organization on the basis of the Platform then and there 
adopted." Whatever else the writer means by this statement, 
it shows clearly that the idea that there was a permanent 
organization w r as in the mind of the Presbytery and influenced 
its decision, and is here brought forward to justify the Pres- 
bytery in finding us guilty of following a divisive course and 
suspending us from the ministry, 

But I want to call the attention of this Court to these facts : 
1. To the fact that the libel does not specify as one of its 
charges that there was an organization; hence it should not 
be allowed to enter into the decision of the case. You all 
understand that. 2. That the official Minutes, if there is such 
a thing, (or any other Minutes connected with the East End 



128 



STENOGRAPHIC REPORT. 



Meeting), never came before the Court as evidence or any- 
thing else. Hence I made the assertion that there was nc* 
evidence brought before the Court that I was connected with 
an organization which had planned or purposed followiug a 
divisive course. But on the other hand, to offset the insinua- 
tions and the statements that there was an organization, five 
of the seven declared that they never considered there was an 
organization. I produced the sworn statement of the chair- 
man of the East End Meeting to that effect, that there was no 
organization. And yet without any evidence to support what 
they had come to believe from hearsay, Presbytery, as shown 
by the Pastoral Letter, did allow it to weigh in their dicision, 
and many in the church to-day believe that there was an 
organization, and that its official Minutes were in evidence in' 
the Court at the time of the trial. Hence, I say, that what- 
ever the decision might have been, had it been proven that 
there was an organization, without that proof the decision is- 
certainly an unjust decision and renders the trial unfair. 

4. In that the prosecutor in the case and the assistant clerk 
of Presbytery, both regular hearers and attenders of my 
preaching, testified to my fidelity in the pulpit in maintain- 
ing the peace and unity of the church, which was confirmed 
by 178 members of my congregation and 38 adherents, who 
further testified to my fidelity in maintaining the doctrines 
and order of the church in session and in pastoral work. I 
ought not perhaps to say that the prosecutor and assistant 
clerk testified; they were not brought forward as witnesses, 
but in the first meeting of Presbytery, at which I did make 
statements, I appealed to them to verify what 1 said, — that I 
had never preached the principles of the East End Platform 
in the pulpit, and they both rose and gave testimony to that 
effect in that way. I mentioned this to show how unfair it 
was to first imagine that my purpose in attending the Meet- 
ing was "To seek the abandonment by the Church of her dis- 
tinctive principles and practices." and then when I proved by 
216 witnesses that my conduct in the pulpit and pastoral 
work, and in the session, had been to preserve the peace and 
law and order of the church, to follow their imaginations up 
with a trial, and then, without a particle of evidence, find me 
guilty of following a divisive course and suspend me from the 
ministry because unsafe to have in any congregation until 
Synod, is not fair. Are 216 witnesses against nothing not to- 
weigh a particle'? But again, 

5. Members of the Presbytery in giving their reasons for 
sustaining the libel showed clearly that they had prejudged 
the case iu that they did not consider the strict merits of the 
case, but voted simply on general principles without due re- 
gard to what was brought forward at the trial. Now the 
reasons that men gave for voting on the case were not re- 
corded, and I cannot go and bring up anything that was not 



THURSDAY, JUNE 4. 



129 



recorded. But when you know that there was no evidenee, 
no testimony, at the trial, how could the decision be accord- 
ing to law and evidence? When there was no evidence, the 
case must have been prejudged. It had to be decided with- 
out due regard to the specifications in the libel. But further, 
when you know that from many of the congregations (I be- 
lieve about seven), memorials have been presented which ac- 
cused the framers of the East End Platform with heresy and 
covenant breaking, and breach of official trust, and insub- 
ordination, and following divisive courses, it is not hard to 
conclude that the matter was already decided in their minds, 
that if we prepared the Platform, we were guilty of following 
divisive courses, since that was only one of the live crimes for 
which we were already condemned. When I tell you still 
further that many of the elders constituting the Court were 
members of the Elders' Convention, had signed its call, had 
participated in its decisions and discussions, wbere it was al- 
ready decided that those who adhered to the principles of the 
East End Platform should have ecclesiastical decapitation 
and their ecclesiastical relations severed, is it then hard to 
decide that these men prejudged the case and decided with- 
out reference to what was brought out at the trial? They 
could not help but have done so since nothing was proven at 
the trial, and all were more or less involved in the steps 
which precipitated the trial. 

I leave then your decision on this part of the case by sum- 
ming it all up in one statement, — there was no evidence to 
prove anything. jSTot a single witness was called; not a 
single particle of testimony adduced. Nothing was admitted 
by me. Hence the case was prejudged, and men based their 
decision on hearsay, secondhand testimony, or private knowl- 
edge, which, and I quote again from the Book, '-shall not be 
suffered to influence the decision ;" but the Book distinctly 
states that the decision must be rendered upon the evidence 
before the Court. Brethren, I may be a heretic and a cove- 
nant breaker, guilty of a breach of official trust, and insub- 
ordination, and following a divisive course, but I beg of you, 
for my sake, for your own sake, for Christ's sake, and the 
sake of His holy religion, give me a fair trial. Bring a libel 
against me that has witnesses to prove the charges. Do not 
let men sit in judgment against me who have not one particle 
of evidence on which to base their decision. I ask that, and 
that is what I do ask. If you want to reclaim me from my 
alleged sinful way, deal with me fairly; deal with me legally; 
deal with me as a man. I stand here to-day, as I stood be- 
fore Presbytery, ready to make any just concession, ready to 
make any atonement in my power, if I can be made conscious 
of any crime; but when a court of God's house proceeds 
against me, at every step in violation of the law of the church 
and of justice, I am only embittered. And I say here, that 



330 



STENOGRAPHIC REPORT. 



this case, as conducted by men than whom there were none 
in whom I had more implicit faith and trust, has embittered 
my whole life: has tended to set me against the church and 
ag'ainst those very principles which 'I hold most dear and 
precious. I did every thing I could to get this matter settled 
peaceably and in such a way as would be for the best inter- 
ests of the church. But even my own famtliar friends, on 
whom I did rely, with whom I had taken sweet counsel to 
God*s house, with whom I had spent sweet hours of Christian 
fellowship, these I found plotting my hurt, and treating with 
contempt my prayers and strenuous efforts for peace and re- 
conciliation. 

, And this brings us now with our complaints to the end of 
the trial. I had expected that the case would of necessity 
stop here: that my pledges, given in the basis of settlement 
and adhered to, to the very close of the case, and especially 
my appeal from the decision of the court when the decision 
was given, would have sent me back to my people until the 
meeting of Synod anyway. But I am compelled to complain 
further against Presbytery. 

6. Because the suspension was unjust and severe. First. — 
In that I was suspended without any proper trial of my guilt. 
I have a good deal written here. I am only going to stop 
long enough just to say a few words. "Without '-a proper trial 
of my guilt." Trial! A trial without witnesses! A trial 
without evidence! A trial without anybody to prove one 
single specification ! As another has said: '-In the name of 
Holt, and Somers and Jay, and Hale and Erskine. I protest 
against the name.*' Trial ! It was only a concerted action on 
the part of Pittsburgh Presbyteiy. That is all. And guilt! 
Of what am I guilty"? What sin have I committed? They said 
I broke a law of last Synod. The libel does not specify even 
that. What weight should it have had then in the decision? 
Had I broken the law of last Synod in regard to "teaching 
and publishing sentiments contrary to and subversive of the 
well established principles of the church.'" why was not I ac- 
cused of it and tried for it? But they never mentioned it 
there, not once. I say it was not a trial. 

But I complain against the suspension as unjust and severe, 
Second. — "In that it was inflicted after an appeal had been 
made from the conviction, which other Presbyterian bodies 
declare necessarily suspends all further proceedings, and 
which our own Book by omission leaves to the common law 
of Presbyterianism."' I made one mistake there, and I will 
correct it. I said, "our Book, by omission leaves it to the 
common law of Presbyterianism I made that statement on 
the strength of the statements of members of Presbytery. 
But I find that our Book has a law on that point, and the 
strongest of any book, and that our suspension, after we had 
taken an appeal, was a most direct violation of our own Book 



THURSDAY, JUNE 4. 



131 



of Discipline. Our Book of Discipline, page 80. sec. 1, says : 
••An appeal is the removal of a case already decided by an in- 
ferior judicatory to a superior, by the party agrieved." There 
is no exception whatever, — "an appeal is the removal of a 
case " That ought to settle it. "By a party agrieved." It 
doesn't mean that when an a grieved party appeals from a 
decision that the court can proceed to the nest step in the 
trial. Xo, sir. not for a minute. It means that an appeal re- 
moves the case to the next superior judicatory. If I can 
understand the English language that is what it means. 
According to our own Book when I appealed from the ad- 
missibility, which I did at the time, the case should ha\*e 
.gone to the next higher court. Or. when I appealed from the 
relevancy, which I did at the time, it should have gone to the 
next higher court. But especially is this true when I appealed 
from the conviction. The trial was over then. The verdict 
was rendered. My appeal, according to our own Book, 
should have removed the case to the next superior judicatory. 
Xow, think of a man tried for murder and found guilty. He 
appeals to the next higher court, but the court which has 
found him guilty of murder says. He is guilty. The punish- 
ment for murder is hanging. He may appeal to the next 
higher court, but we are going to hang him, and hang him 
they do before the next higher court'has met and decided 
whether the lower court's finding was right or not. That is 
just what Pittsburgh Presbytery did when it suspended me 
after I appealed from their decision, and that right in the face 
of a law which in their own Book says, "an appeal is the re- 
moval of a case."' 

But we appeal to the law of Presbyterianism, and I am not 
going to go back of that. The Presbyterian and United 
Presbyterian books are about the same. We will quote from 
the United Presbyterian Book of Discipline, of 1880, page 65, 
sec. 2, under appeals. It says : "Appeals may be made either 
from a definitive sentence as unjust or mistaken, or from any 
particular step of the proceedings.'" This proves that I 
could take an appeal from admissibility and relevancy and 
remove the case, since the United Presbyterian law agrees 
with our Book, that an appeal is the removal of a case, and 
that an appeal may be taken from any particular step of the 
proceedings. And further, on page 657, sec. 11, of the same 
book, we have the following : "The operation of an appeal is 
to suspend all further proceedings."' Do you want anything 
more definite than this. I repeat it: u The operation of an 
appeal is to suspend all further proceedings;" and, "an 
appeal may be made from any particular step of the proceed- 
ing."' This then would have stopped the trial on my appeal 
from the admissibility alone, or relevancy alone, or verdict 
alone. There is only one way to avoid this, and I am going 
to give you the matter straight. On page 657, sec. 12, of the 



132 



STENOGRAPHIC REPORT. 



United Presbyterian Book, it says: "In cases where the ad- 
mission of an appeal would necessarily and injuriously delay 
process it is competent for the inferior court to refuse to ad- 
mit an appeal, and having done so to proceed with the trial."" 
That is, if my appeal from admissibility or relevancy would 
have delayed process, they could have passed a motion to 
refuse to grant me an appeal, and could have gone on with 
the trial. And I want you to mark the word "trial," not with, 
the "execution." But they would have had to refuse the 
appeal by motion. Did Presbytery refuse my appeals? No r 
not one. The Minutes rs-cord them just as taken, and when 
taken. Not one single appeal was refused. Still, Pittsburgh 
Presbytery went right on, not only with the trial but with the 
execution, contrary to our own law, and contrary to United 
Presbyterian law. 

But I am going to go a little further w T ith you. There is- 
more law on this question. In the United Presbyterian Book r 
under art. 3, sec. 2, we read : "The operation of an appeal is 
to suspend all further proceedings on the ground of the sen- 
tence appealed from. But if a sentence of suspension or ex- 
communication from church privileges, or of deposition from 
office, is the sentence appealed from, it shall be in force until 
the appeal be issued. 1 ' 

That is, if I had waited until they decided to suspend me r 
and appealed then, I could not have stopped it. That is 
simply common sense. But I appealed before that. I ap- 
pealed from the sentence when they found me guilty of fol- 
lowing divisive courses, and that stopped the proceedings* 
This was quoted in the K. P. and C, of May, to show two 
things. First, that the suspended men had no right to preach 
in churches of other denominations. You can have the benefit 
of the logic. And, second, that our appeals would not re- 
move the case or stay the execution of the sentence of sus- 
pension. Why, of course, had I allowed the admissibility to- 
pass without an appeal, and relevancy to pass without an ap- 
peal, and the finding of the Court that I was guilty of follow- 
ing a divisive course to pass without an appeal, and then the 
Court had entered judgment and decided I should be sus- 
pended, then my appeal would not have stayed the execution 
of the sentence. But that is not pertinent to my case. I ap- 
pealed three times before that, and the United Presbyterian 
Book says, "The operation of an appeal is to suspend all fur- 
ther proceedings." It should have been suspended w r hen I 
appealed from the admissibility, and from relevancy, and 
from finding me guilty. 

It makes an exception, — had I not appealed until they 
moved what sentence should be pronounced against me, and 
the sentence had been admonition or rebuke, I could not have 
stopped it then; and the only reason why they have said it 
cannot stop suspension or deposition from ministerial office, 



THURSDAY, JUNE 4. 



133 



and all that, is because suspension should be only executed in 
eases of immorality, or very flagrant cases of sin and scandal. 
(See page 647, United Presbyterian Book of Discipline.) 

A suspension is not to be for every little trifling offence. 
The'Book says: "This censure becomes necessary when very 
gross offences have been committed; or when not with- 
standing admonition or rebuke the offence is repeated or per- 
sisted in ; or when probation is necessaiy to attest repentance 
and reformation." "Very gross offences!" And yet we were 
told that we were moral men. It is very pertinent here to ask 
the question, How moral can a man be when he is guilty of 
heinous sin and scandal? 

I notice, that my suspension was unjust and severe, Third. 
Because it was inflicted in the face of an almost unanimous 
request of my congregation to continue my labors, coupled 
with its testimony that my work and life among them had 
been in strict conformity with all the laws of the church. 
Had I been charged with immoralities, or with an act of 
wickedness, my congregation would not have done that. 
There is no excuse for Presbytery's severe course. Had my 
congregation intimated to them that I was preaching and 
teaching that which was contrary to the laws of our church; 
or had they intimated that in order to maintain peace and 
harmony in the congregation my removal was necessary; or 
had they even remained silent when they saw that Pittsburgh 
Presbytery was likely to remove me from them, you might 
condone the act of Presbytery. But when they petitioned 
Presbytery to allow me to remain with them ; when they 
testified to my loyalty to the church in the pulpit, in the ses- 
sion and in pastoral work, surely there was no reason for 
Pittsburgh Presbytery taking such a severe course with me, 
which course, whatever may have been their intention, has 
scattered the people like sheep without a shepherd, and I fear 
placed some of them where they can never be reclaimed to 
cur church or to any other church. 

I want this Court to know that I do not consider myself one 
whit responsible for the condition of that flock, which I loved 
and which I have reason to believe loved me. and which I 
have borne on the sweet wings of prayer up to God's throne 
more fervently than ever since I was separated from them, 
and they from me. And I ask myself, wherein is God glori- 
fied, or the church benefited, by this unjust and severe censure 
which Pittsburgh Presbytery saw lit to inflict upon me, and 
■upon them also? What have I done to merit such chastise- 
ment? May God give you light to see the wrong that has been 
done me and the church and the congregation in this course 
cf the Presbytery which suspended me contrary to every law, 
both of our own Book and the common lawof Presbyterianism. 

But it is still further unjust and severe, because, Fourth. — 
I was deprived not only from performing ministerial duties, 



134 



STENOGRAPHIC REPORT. 



but also from membership privileges, though no immorality 
was charged against me, and when the only offence was the 
having an opinion, which I never propagated, and which I 
had agreed not to propagate in any disorderly way. Does- 
this Court know that we disavowed the East End Platform as- 
a bond of union, or as anything else than a private opinion? 
Do you know that we re-engaged to maintain the discipline 
of the church on all matters within our jurisdiction? Do yous 
know that we engaged not to propagate any of the views set 
.forth in the East End Platform in a disorderly way? All this 
we did at the request of the Judicial Committee, as a basis of 
settlement, in order that confidence might be restored and 
peace and harmony prevail, and that we might go on laboring, 
together in the church. To this basis of settlement we ad- 
hered to the end of our trial. I know another basis was- 
proposed which I did not accept, (and I want you to notice 
this), because, 1st. It required me to withdraw from an 
organization which I had over and over again told them I did 
not know was in existence; and 2nd. It required me to 
express sincere regret for my connection with it, when before 
my God I knew I nad never had any connection with it, and 
which, so far as I knew, existed only in the imagination of 
some persons and in the call for the Elders' Convention. It 
seems to me now that it will not be hard for this Court to see 
that in my taking the second basis of settlement I would have 
had practically to perjure myself, and the Presbytery ought 
to have known it, and if they had taken a second thought they 
would have known it. And still they suspended me. 

Let me call your attention here to this fact. The only dif- 
ferences between me and Presbyterj- were these two clauses 
which required me to withdraw from an organization and to 
express sincere regret for connection with it, when they had 
never proved there was an organization. Why didn't they 
try me for belonging to an organization and settle it on that 
score? And all the rest would have been settled. No, sir I 
They turned right around and libelled me for following a 
divisive course. They ought to have tried me for belonging: 
to an organization, for that was the only point at issue. And 
still they suspended me — suspended me from the ministry of 
the church. Though no immorality was charged against me r 
though it was said to us that we were not charged with any 
immorality.* yet I was deprived of sealing ordinances and 
treated like a felon, as though I were guilty of immorality.. 
Brethren, I was deprived and shut out even from leading in. 
prayer, in my own prayer meeting. It may seem a very small 
matter to Presbytery that I am accused of a "heinous sin and 
scandal," and they may smooth it all over as "only a form of 
libel." It may seem a very little thing to be deprived of 
sealing ordinances. It may seem to them that for the sake of 
a settlement I might have accepted the second basis, which. 



THUKSDAY, JUNE 4. 



13* 



would have been an acknowledgment of something that was 
false, a vindication of a lie, and a false testimony against my 
own character and veracity forever. It may seem a small 
matter to be cast out of the church and classed with adul- 
terers and drunkards. But heaven knows the difference, and 
despite their determination that in the eyes of other Christians 
we should so be classed, the hand of Christian charity was 
extended, and the verdict of other denominations was a dis- 
crimination between us and those who had been suspended 
from our church for the aforesaid crimes; arid that was all 
that saved some of us from being driven to doubt that there 
was any love of Christ shed abroad in the hearts of his 
professed people, and perhaps, too, saved us from abandoning 
the work of the ministry altogether. 

(The hour for devotional exercises arriving it was moved 
and seconded that the speaker be allowed to continue until he 
should finish his remarks, which was duly carried.) 

Rev. J. R. J. MILLIGAX: Think of it, Brethren! Suspended 
for an opinion which we would hold in an orderly manner! 
Suspended from the Reformed Presbyterian church for an 
opinion about subordinate standards! Classed with adulterers 
and drunkards because we would not declare a lie. Gentle- 
men, members of this Court, I know the Christian world and 
the Christian church well enough to say that if you Can afford 
to have this done w T ith your sanction and approval, so can I. 
But, as a Court of God"s house can you allow such high- 
handed procedure upon the part of Pittsburgh Presbytery! 
Remember you constitute a Court of Christ, who is the Head 
of the church, and who is to be glorified in all your dealings* 
But I appeal and complain, 

6. Because I was deceived by the Judicial Committee, ia 
that I was given to understand that it was a Commission 
having full power to settle the matter. To discuss this point 
and the next one is a duty which is forced upon me. The men 
composing that Committee were men in whom I had every 
confidence. Three of them had stood in specially close and 
intimate relationship to me. -Their promise was to me as 
good as a sworn statement, or a written and signed agree- 
ment. I could not believe them capable of doing a dis- 
honorable thing, and I trusted them in the settlement of this 
matter to an unlimited degree, and wonld not and could not 
think of them what 1 am now forced to charge against them. 
It might be well to state to this Court a little more clearly 
that there were four meetings of Presb3^ter} r connected with 
these cases of suspension. 1. The regular meeting in the 
fall, where we, w T ho are now suspended, were asked to make 
statements, which were afterwards used against us, and 
which appointed a Judicial Committee. 2. The meeting held 
to consider the report of that Judicial Committee, and which 
authorized the Judicial Committe to prepare libels against 



136 



STENOGRAPHIC REPORT. 



the five who were present at that meeting. Mr. McClurkin 
and I were not present at that meeting. 3. The meeting 
which tried the five and ordered libels against Mr. McClurkin 
and myself. 4. The meeting at which I was tried. The first 
meeting of Presbytery authorized a Judicial Committee 
(page 136 of the Minutes of Presbytery) to make further 
efforts to agree upon a basis of settlement, and "if successful 
to call a special meeting of Presbytery for its consideration; 
if such endeavor prove unavailing, then the Committee shall 
have full power to call witnesses before them, ascertain the 
facts, and if found necessary, frame charges and call a special 
meeting of Presbytery and cite the parties to appear." That 
is a good deal of authority for a Committee. 

The Committee met on December 22nd, in Dr. J. W. 
Sproull's church, in the morning, and prepared a basis of 
settlement. Six of us met this Committee in the afternoon 
and accepted the basis of settlement as drawn up by that 
Committee without a word being changed. The Minutes have 
this record concerning the meeting, (page 136): "After a full 
and free conference, with a view to the restoration Of harmony 
and confidence between brethren, the following statement 
was agreed upon, with the cordial approval of the brethren 
named in it: Revs. E. M. Milligan, J. R. J. Milligan, O. B. 
Milligan, H. W. Reed, W. L. C. Samson and H. W. Temple, 
being interrogated by the chairman, each and seA^erally gave 
their assent. The statement is as follows : 1. We disavow the 
East End Platform as a bond of union within the Reformed 
Presbyterian church and as other than an explanation of 
individual opinion. 2. We engage to abide by the existing 
laws of this church as to voting at civil elections and holding 
office, and to carry them out in the exercise of our office. 3. 
We engage not to propagate views contrary to the above 
while holding the position of ministers of the Reformed Pres- 
byterian church." Now, it is with regard to this I complain. 
I was deceived in that I was given to understand that it was a 
Commission having full power to settle the matter. I under- 
stood this before I went to the meeting, and that which was 
done at the meeting confirmed my belief. 

To begin with, after the meeting was opened with prayer, 
the chairman arose and said to us that they had met in the 
morning, had prayed for divine guidance, had formed a basis 
of settlement which they had agreed to ask us to sign. He 
said, "there is nothing behind it; 11 that they had endeavored 
to frame it with a view to reconciling all parties, and that 
our signing it would, "settle the whole matter." Believing 
it to be a Commission, I felt there w r as "nothing behind it," 
as the chairman stated we must make a strong effort to agree 
together and accept the basis. Consequently, believing it 
would settle the whole matter, we, as the Minutes say, (page 
136), "each and severally gave assent." 



THURSDAY, JUNE 4. 



137 



What was the meaning of the statement that there was 
nothing behind it? What did the chairman mean when he 
said our acceptance of this proposition would settle the whole 
matter. Did he mean to give out the idea that it was a Com- 
mission? We have a right to believe he did, for it was after- 
wards brought out that in the morning when he opened the 
meeting he constituted it as a Court or Commission. The 
-chairman thought it was a Commission himself, and with 
that idea told us, our acceptence of their proposition would 
settle the whole matter. After we had accepted that basis he 
said to me, u Well, my brother, we can still be laborers to- 
gether." Is there no importance to be attached to all these 
things? Are they matters that can be brushed a«ide with the 
hand or pen at a moment's notice? We thought we were 
dealing with honest men. We went to that meeting fresh 
ifrom a prayer meeting. I am not sorry that I accepted that 
hasis, or that I trusted these men, although I may suffer here 
-on account of their action. 

But I complain against deception, "in their giving us the 
right hand of fellowship upon our approval of the basis and 
expressing their great satisfaction that the affair was so 
amicably settled." Now we did consider that the right hand 
of fellowship, because we thought it was a commission, and 
that the affair was all settled. They did all take our hands 
"very warmly, except one, who said at a later meeting of 
Presbytery that he took it very reluctantly, because he 
thought we were laboring under the idea that it was a com- 
mission. Well, you can attach whatever importance you wish 
to his believing that we thought it was a commission ; but I 
think it shows that there was sufficient cause for us to so be- 
lieve. Their own Minutes of the meeting have the following 
item : "After fraternal salutation the brethren retired and the 
"Committee proceeded to finish its business." Now I like that 
expression, "fraternal salutation." I do think that the right 
hand, extended after a basis of settlement was agreed upon by 
the Committee, called a "fraternal salutation," was at least a 
pledge that, so far as they were concerned, they, as members 
of the Committee, would stand by us in endeavoring to have 
Presbytery accept the basis, and settle the matter. But they 
•did not do it, and I am forced to complain, 

7. Because of the breach of faith on the part of the Com- 
mittee: — 1st. In that one of the members of the Committee 
Introduced resolutions at the next meeting of Presbytery 
which nullified the agreement at the Committee meeting. I 
have told you that the chairman of the Committee said there 
was nothing behind their "statement," and that our approval 
would "settle the whole matter," and that they gave us the 
right hand in fraternal salutation, upon our acceptance of the 
basis. 

We turn to the Minutes of Presbytery, which met to con- 



138 



STENOGRAPHIC REPORT. 



sider the report of the Committee (that is the meeting of 
Presbytery I was not at), and on page 137 we read: "The re- 
port was accepted, and while a motion to adopt it was pend- 
ing, a member of the Court submitted a series of resolutions^ 
and proposed that they be considered in connection with the 
report, which was done." That is this series of resolutions,, 
introduced by that member of the court, were to be considered 
in connection with that basis of settlement to which we had 
already agreed. That member of the Court was a member of 
the Committee, and its Secretary, and he gave us his right 
hand in fraternal salutation ; he allowed the chairman of the 
meeting to say for him that there was nothing behind the 
basis agreed upon. And yet he brought in something behind 
it. He came to Pittsburgh Presbytery about two weeks after 
with a series of resolutions in his pocket, and he proposed 
that they should be considered in connection with their 
report : and he tries to conceal himself behind the Minutes of 
Presbytery, that he introduced these resolutions "as a mem- 
ber of the Court.'' I leave that there. 

But further, the Committee as a whole is responsible for 
the act of one of its members, when they allowed it. The 
Committee gave us a pledge that that basis settled the matter,, 
and still allowed a member of that Committee to keep it from 
beiug settled on that basis alone. Had this member of the 
Committee, of whom I have spoken, objected at the Com- 
mittee meeting, he might have been allowed to bring, in a 
minority report. Or had "a member of the Court," not a 
member of the Committe, presented these resolutions then 
the Committee would have been blameless. But when they 
settle the matter, assure us there is nothing behind it, give 
us their hand in fraternal salutation and let us go free, then I 
claim, it not only reflects on the integrity of the member of 
the Committee who presented the resolutions, but it reflects 
on the whole Committee. That act was a breach of faith, for 
which the young men ought not to be made to suffer, and I 
believe there would have been no trouble in having the Pres- 
bytery accept the basis, had these resolutions never been pre- 
sented, and had the members of the Committee stood by their 
agreement with us. I need not stop long to inform you what 
influence that Committee has in Presbytery. Why, they are 
almost the Reformed Presbyterian Synod. 

But this brings us to the second point under the breach of 
faith : — 2nd. In that when the basis agreed upon at the Com- 
mittee meeting was laid on Presbytery's table awaiting my 
action, the Committee, through its chairman, recommended 
another basis of settlement, which I was asked to accept 
without any explanation as to the meaning or force of terms. 
It may not be known to you that I was absent from the second 
meeting of Presbytery, Yes, it is ; I have told you three or 
four times. I was absent from the meeting of Presbytery at 



THURSDAY, JUNE 4. 



139 



which this basis of agreement was considered, and when, be- 
cause of the resolutions of a member of the Court and of the 
Committee, the young men were said to have withdrawn 
their assent to the basis of agreement. (Page 138, of the Min- 
utes.) When this was done it was resolved that the Com- 
mittee be continued with full power to prepare charges* 
against the young men who had withdrawn their assent. 

Now here comes in a Minute I want you to notice. It reads 
thus: "J. K. J. Milligan and A. W. McClurkin not being 
present, the report, so far as it relates to them, was laid upon 
the table for the present until the Judicial Committee report 
at the next meeting of Presbytery." You notice, the report, 
so far as it related to J. K. J. Milligan (that is me), was laid 
on the table. I want to know, in what way that report related 
tome? In what way did that report relate to me? Why was* 
it necessary to lay it on the table "so far as it related to me? ,r 
Well, I can see no reason for that action unless it was to see 
whether I would withdraw my assent, as the rest had done., 
or whether I would still adhere to it. That looks like com- 
mon sense. All the relation it had to me, was whether I 
would adhere to it or withdraw my assent from it. It seems, 
that the Presbytery was willing to offer it to me, and if I still 
adhered to it, allow it to settle the matter so far as I was con- 
cerned. Now, this is what I thought. And more, I thought 
the young men were hasty in withdrawing their assent be- 
cause of those resolutions, and I determined to adhere to that 
settlement to the very end, resolutions and all. That was my 
determination, and I did it too. But, was I allowed to do so? 
No, not at all. They will tell you before we are through here 
that that basis was not accepted by Presbytery, and never 
ofiered it to me. They did not allow me to accept that basis 
which was laid on the table "so far as it related 1 ' to me. 

I want you to notice that the other young men, before go- 
ing on trial, at the third meeting of Presbytery, offered a 
basis of settlement, virtually the same as the old one ; but the 
Presbytery again offered the old basis, with two additional 
clauses, which they deemed necessary, at that stage in their 
case. The young men, however, refusing the basis offered by 
Presbytery, were tried and found guilty of following divisive 
courses. Thereupon, the Committee, through its chairman 
(see Minutes of Pittsburgh Presbytery, page 147), recom- 
mended that inasmuch as Presbytery has adopted its own 
basis of settlement and order of procedure, your Committee 
unanimously recommend it to be substituted in place of that 
reported by us at the last meeting. Now, that seems a very 
plausible recommendation on the part of the Committee. But 
what right had the Committee to recommend a new basis for 
me, when I had never withdrawn my assent from the old? If 
the young men were libeled because they withdrew their 
assent, as was published by the clerk of Pittsburgh Presby- 



140 



STENOGRAPHIC REPORT. 



tery, and the old one laid on the table so far as it related to 
me, I do claim it a breach of faith on the part of the Com- 
mittee even to recommend that a new basis should be given 
to me, when I had never withdrawn my assent from the old 
oasis, and when it was lying on the table awaiting my action. 
1 have a right to claim it as a breach of faith. I have a right 
to claim that the basis was laid on the table to see if I would 
still adhere to it. Members of the Presbytery had the very 
same idea. The clerk of Presbytery, if he were here, would 
testify to this that he said, I ought to be allowed to settle on 
the old basis. An elder of Presbytery. I think I saw his face, 
lie is sitting over here, although not a member of this Court, 
told me afterwards that I ought to have the old basis of set- 
tlement. The man that prosecuted my case, and prosecuted 
the case of the five, when I said to the Court that I would still 
adhere to the basis of settlement, as agreed upon by the Judi- 
cial Committee, rose and said: "I told you you had no right 
to assume that Mr. Milligan and Mr. McClurkin would repu- 
diate the basis because the rest did." This goes to show, not 
only that he considered I would still adhere to it, but that 
the Presbytery had virtually accepted it. and it was only the 
■Secretary of the meeting who rose and told me that Presby- 
tery never offered it. The prosecutor said. "Oh." Further, 
the two clauses which were added to that basis were known 
Jyy the Committee and the Presbytery to be such that I could 
not assent to it. I had told that Committee, and I had told 
Presbytery, more than once, that to my knowledge there was 
no organization. How could they, as honest men, ask me. as 
an honest man, to say I would withdraw from an organization 
and express sincere regret for my connection with it? How 
could I be sincere in doing what they asked me to do, when 
sincerely I did not believe there was an organization at all, 
or" that I was connected with one. It was absolutely ridicu- 
lous, if not criminal. 

Why should they first propose resolutions in' cjnnectlon 
with the basis, which would cause five of the seven to with- 
draw their assent, when there was nothing behind it? And 
why, when they saw the other two of the seven were willing 
to swallow resolutions and all. did they take up the old basis 
and add two more clauses which they knew we could not ac- 
cept, and offer that to us as a basis of settlement? It does 
seem to me that the Committee was determined that the case 
of the seven should not be settled short of our suspension 
from the Church, or our degradation from the standing of 
nonorable men. From the time they asked us to engage in 
prayer with them previous to our making statements for the 
purpose of settling the matter, it was one continual betrayal 
on the part of that Committee. They took our statements^ as 
evidence against us, after saying it was unkind even Jto in- 
sinuate they might do it. They made a basis of settlement. 



THURSDAY, JUNE 4. 



141 



When they found we would accept it they nullified it by 
adding resolutions. And when they found the other two were 
g-oino- to take it with resolutions and all they then put in 
conditions which they knew we could not, as honorable men,, 
accept for a moment. The prosecutor in my case, when I 
referred to this in my trial, said he was sorry I based my 
reasons for not accepting the last basis on my manhood. Well,. 
Brethren. I regard my manhood and my integrity as a man of 
truth, above relationship with any Court which requires me to 
sacrifice it in order to remain within its pale. 

Brethren, I have endured much. I have seen my congre- 
gation being scattered and driven away. 1 have felt my faith 
in man being broken and my feet about to slip at times out of 
the path that follows hard by the still waters of God's grace. 
But I thank Him who is my Saviour and Kedeemer, my God 
and Kedeemer. my God and my Guide, that never once have 
I felt tbat smitting of conscience which comes from a. 
consciousness of wrong doing. I may have been unwise and 
indiscreet, and if so I do most sincerely regret my folly and 
indiscretion. But that anything which I have clone wa& 
intended to bring this havoc on the church, or this terribly 
embittered feeling among brethren, I stoutly deny. That 
God may be glorified and His Church built up, even out of 
these dark days and crooked ways and rough places, is my 
earnest prayer; and that God may enable you to do justly, 
and give a wise decision and righteous judgment, as between 
me and Pittsburgh Presbytery" is the prayer of your humble- 
servant and complainant. (Recess was then taken.) 

AFTERNOON SESSION. 

Thursday, June 4th. 1891. 

The MODERATOR announced that the Court was ready to 
proceed with the pending business. 

Rev. E. M. MILL 1G AN : When I was making my address I 
started to make a statement and was challenged. I withdrew 
the remark at that time, with the understanding that I would 
again have the privilege of coming before this Court to state 
what I had to say on that matter. May I have the privilege at 
this time"? 

The MODERATOR: Yes. sir. 

Rev. E. M. MILLIGAX : Mr. Moderator. Fathers and Breth- 
ren, in my address to the members of this Court I was refer- 
ring to the fact that many members of Presbyterv, and the 
large majority of the members of the Commission or Commit- 
tee, were of opinion that that body was a Commission and 
was so appointed by tbe Presbyteiy. I referred to a member 
of that Committee, and mentioned the name of a member of 
this Court who rose and interrupted me. Fearing I might pos- 
sibly have mistaken the name, or misunderstood my informant, 
I at once withdrew my remark until such time as I could come- 



142 



STENOGRAPHIC REPORT. 



before you and state positively what, I had to say on the 
subject. The member of the Commission to whom I refer was 
elder A. B. Copeland, of Parnassus. He was present in this 
Court this morning, and I brought the matter to his attention, 
and asked him to he kind enough to state to me again precisely 
what he had said to me once before on this subject. He then 
made me the following statement and authorized me to use 
his name as authority for it. When Dr. Metheny. was lying 
sick at Parnassus, Kev. John F. Crozier, of this Court, went 
to Parnassus and called on him. This was before the meeting 
of the Judiciary on which Mr. Copeland had been appointed. 
In coming down to the train Rev. Mr. Crozier stopped in Mr. 
Copeland's office. At that time Mr. Copeland was very much 
disinclined to attend ; but Mr. Crozier urged him to attend 
that meeting. He urged him to come down and do what he 
could to settle the trouble. From what he said he left Mr. 
Copeland with the impression, or with the understanding, that 
it was a Commission, and urged him for that reason to be 
there and do what he could to settle the trouble. Mr. Cope- 
land told me that he had gone to that meeting with the firm 
understanding that it was a Commission; that if for one 
moment he had thought it was simply a Committee, he 
would not have gone ; but he went there believing it to be a 
Commission, and was only advised to the contrary after he 
had been in that place. What I was going to say in connec- 
tion with this when I was interrupted was, that Mr. Copeland 
believed it to be a Commission. And I feel it to be the more 
important to say this now, owing to certain things that have 
been said in regard to the Committee. It has been stated that 
the entire Committee broke faith with the young men. I do 
feel, in justice, that the name of A. B. Copeland, at least, 
should be excepted. He was not a member of Presbytery 
from Parnassus congregation, and he was simply appointed 
on this Committee. Hence, when the Presbytery was recon- 
vened he was not present. However, he told me when I 
returned to Parnassus that it was an outrage that anything 
should be added in any way to the basis of settlement that had 
been agreed upon at that time. And he told me more, that if 
he had been on the floor of Presbytery, whether any member 
of that Committee, or any other man, had attempted to add to 
that paper, he would have been on his feet demanding in the 
name of justice, that that basis of settlement and nothing else, 
be the one that Presbytery should take into consideration. 
With these remarks. Mr Moderator, I am done. 

Rev O. B. M1LLIGAX : Mr. Moderator, allow me just a 
word. 

The MODERATOR : I have not the power. 

A MEMBER : With reference to the statement the speaker 
has just made, I think he should verify his statement. We 
should not listen to hearsay evidence. 



THURSDAY, JUNE 4. 



143 



Kev. E. M. MILLIGAN : If the Court is willing to pay for 
the telegram I am willing to telegraph Mr. Copeland. I 
started to make a certain statement; before I had finished 
that statement I was challenged in my remarks and I have 
simply finished the statement at this time. 

Kev. 0. B. MILLIGAN : Mav I say a few words. 

The MODERATOR : The Moderator has no power to grant 
your request. 

Rev. O. B. MILLIG-AN" : It is simply a piece of evidence in 
substantiation of a declaration that I made this morning that 
I neglected to give to the Court, owing to the fact that I had 
no manuscript prepared. As I will have no opportunity of 
presenting the evidence after the defendants have presented 
their side of the'case, I ask the indulgence of the Court. 

Rev. J. C. SMITH : I think by consent we will give the 
brother a few moments. 

Rev. O. B. MILLIGAJS": You will remember, Fathers and 
Brethren, that I said I had been true to all the obligations 
that rested upon me after having taken covenant vows to be 
faithful to the law and order of the Reformed Presbyterian 
church. In substantiation of that I wish to say that before 
the trial commenced in Wilkinsburgh a memorial was sent up 
from the East End congregation to Presbytery. It was a 
memorial unsolicited on my part. In it was the plain declara- 
tion (and I think all, if not all, all but one or two, of the East 
End congregation joined in it) that not a word had I spoken 
from my pulpit, or in any of my public utterances to that 
congregation, against the law and order or the Testimony, or 
the application of the law and order of the Reformed Pres- 
byterian church. Moreover, Mr. Moderator, and Fathers and 
Brethren, I want to call this fact to your attention. When the 
delegates from our congregation were being heard on the 
floor of Presbytery, remonstrating against Presbytery going 
forward with this trial, one of the members of that delegation 
asked, through the Moderator, the delegate of our session 
whether in our judicial court we had ever received any one 
into the church without questioning them with special 
reference to the application of the law and order and the 
Testimony of the Reformed Presbyterian church, and that 
delegate, in open Court, testified that as a session we had 
been true to all that this Court could demand of us. Now I 
want to add to that, we had been true in requiring of all who 
desired admission to our church that they would refrain from 
exercising the right of franchise. With that, and thanking 
you, I am done. 

Rev. J. F. CROZIER : If I have a right here — 

The MODERATOR: If it is a question of privilege you have. 

Rev. J. F. CROZIER : I wish to be heard. 

The MODERATOR: If it is a question of privilege you 
have a right to be heard. 



144 



STENOGRAPHIC REPORT* 



Eev, J. F. CROZIER : I said in answer to Mr. Milligan 
yesterdaj^ that I had never made such a statement, as that that 
Committee was a Commission, to Mr. Copeland or anybody- 
else ; and 1 am here simply to repeat that statement. I am 
not responsible for any understanding Mr. Copeland or any- 
body else may take from my words ; but I say, as plainly as I 
did yesterday, I never made, to any living person, such a 
statement. JSTow in proof of that, I want to tell you thisi 
When the Committee on Discipline reported I was very much 
afraid they would report referring this to a Commission, and 
I was determined beforehand if they did, I would oppose • it- 
And the older members of Pittsburgh Presbytery will re- 
member that on more than one occassion I have opposed 
referring to a Commission such important business as that r 
and giving them powers. I have always been opposed to it r 
and I was afraid they would bring in a report referring this to 
a Commission, and when it came in a 1 'Committee" I was- 
satisfied. 

DEFENCE OF PITTSBURGH PRESBYTERY. 

The MODERATOR : We are prepared now to take the next 
step in the matter before us. The appellants and complainants 
have completed their arguments in support of their appeals 
and complaints. The next step is to hear the representatives 
of Pittsburgh Presbytery. It has already been officially an- 
nounced to this Court that the Revs. R. J. George and David 
McAllister have been appointed to represent Presbytery on 
the floor of Synod. The Rev. R. J. George will now address 
the Court. 

Rev. R. J. GEORGE, D. D. : Mr. Moderator, Fathers and 
Brethren : I am not insensible to the gravity of the charges 
that have been made against me personally in your hearing, 
in connection with these cases. I should not have expected 
to appear before you in any other relation then as speaking in 
defence of the course of that Presbytery which I have been 
appointed to represent. The leader in the devotional exercises 
said to me that he thought I should offer the prayer. I said 
to him, I did not think that I was competent to do it at this 
stage of the proceedings. Reflections upon ministerial in- 
tegrity I regard as of the gravest character, and at the first 
intimation of it, by my brother yesterday, I asked that the 
clerk take down the words which he uttered. I recognized, 
as you all do, that these brethren were not in a position to 
prefer charges against me by libel, on account of being before 
Court themselves. And I recognized that the matters to 
which reference was made were of so grave importance that if 
by the action of this Court they are restored to their positions 
and places on the floor of Synod, then it would be necessary 
that I myself should retire until the Court should adjust the 
question between us. If any minister in regular standing on 



THURSDAY, JUNE 4. 



145 



the floor had impugned my character, as stated before you, of 
•course, immediately, out of respect to a court of Christ's 
house and my brethren in the church, 1 should have regarded 
myself as placed in that position. I make these remarks that 
you may know that I do not misapprehend the gravity of the 
circumstances under which I am here before you. 

The first thing I claim in behalf of Pittsburgh Presby- 
tery is, that in all this painful procedure she has preserved 
the utmost care with reference to ministerial character before 
the community ; 'that while she has been compelled in fidel- 
ity to the church, to maintain a firm position with reference 
to what seemed to her a departure from our Testimony and 
our sworn engagements, she has on every occasion endeavored 
to keep before the mind of the public that she was not reflect- 
ing upon the moral character of those who were brought to 
her bar. The Moderator of our Presbytery in preferring the 
libels called very distinct attention to this fact. In each case 
he was very careful to say to these dear young brethren that 
there was no imputation upon their moral integrity. Our 
brother, the Moderator of Presbytery, furthermore, in the 
Pastoral Letter which he addressed to the church, gave very 
great prominence to that truth, in order that, sending that 
letter over the whole church, which had reference to this 
painful matter, there might not in any way be any reflection 
cast upon the moral character and integrity of these men who 
had been thus dealt with by the Presbytery. 

I say that is the first claim I make on behalf of our Presby- 
tery. We have gone to such an extent in that, that, as you 
have heard again and again on the floor of this Court, it has 
seemed to many a very remarkable and almost a ridiculous 
thing that brethren who were charged with heinous sin and 
scandal should at the same time, and by the same court, be 
held up before the public as guilty of no immoralities. This 
distinction is clearly made in our Book of Discipline. The 
larger body of Presbyterians, dealing last week with reference 
to one of their brothers, a most illustrious man, and widely 
known, made no reflection upon the moral character of Dr. 
Briggs. although they judged, him disqualified for a high 
position in the Presbyterian Church, with all his scholarship, 
literary attainments, and perhaps, high spiritual life. I think 
you can easily see that our Court has not been mistaken in 
maintaining this distinction in her course of procedure, and 
that she had indicated a proper spirit, in her anxiety not in 
any way to inflict injury upon the young men whom she felt 
constrained to separate from her ministry. 

My Brethren, you have heard the testimony of this fact 
from the lips of the young men themselves. They have said 
to you that they appreciate what Presbytery has done in this 
regard. They have thanked the Moderator both for his 
statements in the Court, and also for his statements in the 



146 



STENOGRAPHIC REPORT. 



Pastoral Letter, that he has been so careful to guard their re- 
putations. It is evident that they had had a full appreciation 
of the importance of this to themselves. Conscious as I ain 
that they must appreciate then the value to a minister of his 
reputation in life, I am constrained to believe that they would 
not have been moved to make the statements they have ort 
this floor, with reference to myself (designating me. not by 
name, but in such a way as to be known to the public), before 
the audience assembled here and in the presence of these re- 
presentatives of the Press, and understanding fully that what 
they said they could not recall. — I am persuaded they would 
not have done it if they had not felt they were capable of in 
some way sustaining what they have said by evidence. They 
have submitted to you such evidence as seemed to be in their 
possession; and on the face of it, circumstantial as it was, I 
grant you it was sufficient to very deeply wound me person- 
ally. I am not insensible to the position in which I have been 
placed. But I use it to illustrate the more fully the claim 
that Pittsburgh Presbytery has upon you for kindly consider- 
ation, especially when she is charged with injustice and 
wrong. For you will take note that while she has gone for- 
ward in discharge of this painful duty in this way, she allows 
these ministers to present themselves before you with her 
testimony that they have not done immoral things. 

Second. The second thing I claim for Pittsburg Presbytery 
with reference to her course of procedure is, that she has pre- 
served a silence that is corresponding to her position as a 
court of Christ's house with reference to this matter until this 
hour. She has' been challenged to discussion in the public 
prints. Our brethren have thought it best to lay before the 
Church, in some measure, their grounds of defence before the 
Presbytery, and this has been in the hands of the people. 
Editors have kindly proposed that if the representatives of 
Pittsburgh Presbytery would follow the same course and sub- 
mit their side of the case through the public prints, that the 
discussion might go forward in that way, and the people thus 
be prepared to judge. It has seemed to some a confession of 
weakness on the part of our Presbytery that she has not ac- 
cepted this challenge. My Brethren,^ I say for Pittsburgh 
Presbytery that she would have been very glad, and proud 
indeed, to have submitted to the public the noble, and as it 
seemed to us, dignified and unanswerable defence or advoc- 
acy of Presbytery's course by her representatives, Dr. Willson 
and Rev. Kilpatrick. I am sure I can say that it is not 
through any hesitation to submit the case, as it was before us r 
to the judgment of the public that we have been restrained. 
But it did not seem to us the proper course for a court of 
Christ's house to take. These young men had used the priv- 
ilege which belonged to them, and appealed their case to a 
higher court, and should submit it here ; and I ask you to 



THURSDAY, JUNE 4. 



147 



remember that Presbytery has waited until this hour to vin- 
dicate herself. 1 think it the more important to note this, be- 
cause the members of this Court have not felt themselves re- 
strained from expressing beforehand their convictions as to 
the course our Presbytery has followed; and terms have been 
used that were very irksome, I may say, to the ears of sensi- 
tive brethren who felt they were trying- to do the best they 
could in a difficult case. But they have waited. We have 
taken some courses of procedure to vindicate the law of the 
cluirch which have been regarded as further indications of 
our anxiety to delay the measure. It has been intimated that 
we were throwing up bulwarks and fortifications at every 
point to hold back the meeting of this issue, and the impres- 
sion has been made upon your mind that we were conscious 
of the weakness of our case, and were not willing to submit it 
to the judgment of our brethren. Now I ask you to remember 
that we have had to insist somewhat upon what seemed to us 
essential to the authority of Christ's house. We have borne 
these imputations and have remained true still ; and I am glad 
that we have been vindicated by so large a judgment of Synod 
as to the rightfulness of our course in maintaining the author- 
ity of Christ's house, in order that we might come to this hour 
in that condition and state that is worthy of the case we have 
to decide. I beg your indulgence in this somewhat lengthy 
introduction, because after having listened these many hours 
to the presentation of the other side of the case, I felt it need- 
ful to call your attention to the fact that you are now to hear 
judicially for the first time the defence of Pittsburgh Presby- 
tery, and that all the impression that has been made upon 
your mind by everything presented outside of that presented 
by the defendants themselves in their own defence, you are to 
dismiss, and listen to us as we proceed. 

I want to add my word to what was remarked by my 
brother J. R. J. Milligan as an important privilege. He, in 
the consciousness of a prevailing conservative sentiment, 
which I am happy to think prevails in the Synod, made a 
remark that he hoped the brethren would remember that they 
were not to decide this case upon their convictions of prin- 
ciple, or with the idea that because they held a conservative 
position that therefore they must sustain Pittsburgh Presby- 
tery. I fully endorse that statement. I do hold, dear Breth- 
ren, that truth is more sacred than the rights of any man. 
Truth is more sacred than the rights of any man, and any 
man may be willing to sacrifice his own rights rather than 
sacrifice the cause of truth. But, mark you, God has so con- 
nected the sacredness of the rights of men with the sacred- 
ness of his own truth, that you never can advance the cause 
of truth by trampling upon the rights of men. 

If, as you listen to these cases, you find that Pittsburgh 
Presbytery, in her zeal for the truth, and in her concern for 



148 



STENOGRAPHIC REPORT. 



it, has departed from the proper coarse of procedure in such 
a way as to work injury to these young friends, who have 
plead so earnestly before you,— as to work harm to them, or 
to do wrong, you are not to cast your ballot to sustain Pitts- 
burgh Presbytery because you are anxious to sustain the con- 
servative side of our church. The conservative side of our 
church does not rest upon, does not depend for its vindica- 
tion on. any wrong done to any ministers of this church. 
And so I add my voice to his, that you shall listen simply to 
the presentation of our defence, and that then, on this first 
question, you have to decide whether we have been guilty of 
injustice and wrong, you shall decide simply on the facts as 
they are before your minds. 1 say that we are willing to rest 
the issue upon this statement. 

I wish to say, first of all, that in conference with my 
brother, who is also to represent our Presbytery in its de- 
fence, we have thought best to make a division, so that we 
should not traverse the same ground, and so, as far as pos- 
sible, to facilitate our work. It falls to me to review the line 
of procedure which came before the actual trial in Presby- 
tery, and to deal with those questions that are preliminary, 
while my brother will deal with the questions of law and the 
coarse of procedure, carried forward under his own hand as 
Moderator of Presbytery. 

1 . The first thing I wish to present is this : that this action 
was taken in obedience to the explicit instructions of Synod. 
I wish to go back to the authority under which Pittsburgh 
Presbytery went forward in this instance. I say, she was 
acting under the direction of the superior court. In the Min- 
utes of Synod last year, on page 303, I read this language, 
from the report of the Committee on Discipline: "That 
Synod disapproves and emphatically condemns and warns 
the members of the church against the teaching or publish- 
ing sentiments contrary to and subversive of the well estab- 
lished principles of the church- and the practical application 
of her Testimony against the irreligious institutions of the 
nation, and that Presbyteries are hereby enjoined to see that 
this direction is observed." That we accept as a direction 
from the higher court with reference to certain qustions. 

A point was raised by the first speaker as to the different 
things to which this might apply, which has led me to think 
it necessary (though I had not before) to call attention to the 
fact that Synod distinctly defines the matter to which she in- 
tends to apply. In the Keasons of Dissent, on page 261, of 
the Minutes, which are the reasons of dissent from the action 
of Synod with reference to the report on union with our sister 
church, and this reason of dissent, which I read, is signed by 
the brethren who are before you, and a number of others. 
It is: "VI. We specially protest against the approval 6r 
adoption of the Committee's addition to the basis of union, 



THUKSDAY. JUNE 4. 



149 



which pledges not to vote nor hold office under the United 
States Constitution, as a further condition of membership in 
our Church. ]. Because, although our sessions have long 
required such a condition of membership, yet it was never 
incorporated in our standards, must be overtured and adopted 
before it can be a lawful term of communion, and is contrary 
to the principle of our Testimony, pp. 7. 8. 116. and chapters 
XXI, 3 and XXII, 4. 2. Because it makes our 'explanation 
of terms" a term of communion, binding the conscience, 
which we have always disclaimed. 3. Because it is a mere 
opinion that only proficient students of the Bible and cf 
political philosophy can understand, and thus excludes 
Christ's little ones from church privileges contrary to his 
express will. Matthew 15:9. 16:18 and"l9: 13-18; Romans 
14:1-5. and Revelations 3 : 7-8. 4. Because it dishonors tis 
and our covenanted fathers as having entirely omitted from 
our Testimony that which is now claimed to have been all 
along our chief term of communion, whose omission, the 
Committee in their statements say. -would leave the united 
church without any justifiable ground of a separate denom- 
inational existence."" 

Xow you may still question whether the connection is clear 
between these two acts : but here is the connecting link in 
the Answer to the Reasons of Dissent as prepared and adopted 
by the Synod. I wlil read but a short extract: ''Her deliver- 
ances and the conduct of her members may have been in 
some cases inconsistent, as is true of all other churches: but 
the testimony has been and is that of practical political dis- 
sent from an . immoral constitution of civil government. *' 
Xow notice. "This position, Synod declares its earnest deter- 
mination, by the grace of God. to maintain until the laws and 
authority of Christ are acknowledged in our nation' 1 s fundamental 
la-v." You have there the particular position which Synod 
took its action in order to maintain: and there is no room to 
raise a question as to the meaning of the law with reference 
to what the Synod required when she enjoined the Presby- 
teries to see that certain discussions should cease. 

I think I will have the support in this of our brethren of 
the Xew York Presbytery, as they have also felt themselves 
constrained to act in regard to these matters. I do not know 
that they have acted "out of respect to this law. but they 
certainly have made it clear to this court that they have taken 
up these cases with reference to the same question upon 
which we acted. 

It has been regarded as a reflection upon them that our 
Presbytery sent in a memorial, as if they were not doing their 
duty. My Brethren. I beg you to remember two things : — 1st. 
The Xew York Presbytery did not have to deal with this 
question as we had, because the East End Meeting was held 
in our bounds, and not in theirs. "2nd. At the time our Pres- 



150 



STEJNOGRAPHIC REPORT. 



bytery adopted its memorial to Synod with reference to these 
cases, New York Presbytery had not convened and had taken 
no action. So, I say, it is a mistake to regard Pittsburgh 
Presbytery as assuming to herself a superior righteousness 
over her sister court with reference to this disturbance. The 
sister court has taken her place by our side, by her action, 
according to her representatives on this floor, in taking up the 
cases also. That is the first point which I wish you to fix in 
your minds, that Pittsburgh Presbytery has acted in accord- 
ance with the direction of this Synod, before whom she now 
comes to defend her action. It will be no defence against 
any act of injustice and wrong, but it certainly will be a de- 
fence against very much that has been said as to her right to 
act at all. 

II. The occasion of our action was a specific and definite 
act,— the East End Meeting, held July loth. 1890. The first 
knowledge of this Meeting which we had. was a publication 
in the Pittsburgh Commercial Gazette, of July 22. 1890. I wish 
to call your attention to this first notice given to the public of 
the fact that such a meeting had been held. I shall not read 
all that I find here with reference to it. The heading is : "In 
Secret Session. Important Meeting of Eeformed Presby r 
terian Ministers. An Organization Formed. One Reason 
the Recent Squabble in Synod. Strong Platform Adopted. '* 
And then it goes on to describe how gigantic the move- 
ment is. 

There are five things brought out in connection with this 
announcement, given to the public with regard to this meet- 
ing :— 1st. That a meeting was held; 2nd. That it was a 
Secret Meeting; 3rd. That it formed an Organization; 4th. 
That it framed a Platform ; 5th. That it ordered the Dissem- 
ination and Propagation of that Plaform. Xow that is a very 
clear and definite fact. I want you to remember that it was 
brought to the attention of the church of this neighborhood 
a very few weeks after the adjournment of Synod, when the 
direction was made that* the discussion concerning these 
points should cease. 

I do not think I need to discuss anything to show that the 
evidence was unanswerable, that there was a meeting. The 
Platform issued bv the Meeting was proof that the Meeting 
had been held. Members who were present at it made it 
known in public places, and to their people, and all the cir- 
cumstances connected render it evident that the statement in 
the paper was true: that a meeting was held. 

The question Ins been considered an open one all the year 
whether it was a secret session. I should not take time to 
consider it only for this poinjfc : That it was given out as a 
secret meetiug; that the secrecy of it was held to be an ob- 
jectionable feature, and that the hiddenness of it was a re- 
markable element, and the impossibility of getting rid of that. 



THURSDAY, JUNE 4. 



151 



convince 1 brethren that it was in some sense secret. Now 
notice, — I use my language carefully, — that it was in some 
sense a secret meeting is, I think, evident by actual facts that 
will occur to your minds. 

The first/is, it was held nearly a year ago; it has been in- 
tensely discusssi ever since. How many of you know all 
about it? How mxny of you feel you know all about the East 
End Meeting? Tt was said to be a private meeting, but it was 
a meeting for prayer we are told. It was a m3eting for the 
explanation of views that had been misunderstood. I can see 
that there might be occasion for privacy in a meeting of that 
kind. Those who think alike like to be together, and some- 
times alone. But I can hardly see that there should continue 
lor a whole year an air of uncertainty about a meeting that 
was truly of this devotional character, and with such mani- 
festly open intentions as to explain past misunderstandings. 
I say to you frankly, that after all these facts which came out 
in our Presbytery, I know very little about the East End 
Meeting. Pittsburgh Presbytery's memorial says to you that 
they have knowledge that two or three brothers, whom they 
name, were at that meeting; but they say. "others, known 
and unknown to us." Although we have been over this 
ground in judicial committees that were thought to be com- 
missions, and in Presbytery meetings, for I don't know how 
long, we still have to say, ,4 known and unknown to us " One 
of the most prominent members of this meeting. Father Ken- 
nedy, said on this floor only a few days ago, "Not until a few 
weeks ago did I know that any member of New York Presby- 
tery was at that Meeting.' 1 Yet. dear Brethren, you remem- 
ber all this was a subject of discussion. The place of meet- 
ing, the officers, the membership, the procedure and all is 
shrouded in mystery. The Platform was given to the public, 
— the only thing that should not have been; everything else 
is shrouded in mystery. 

I do not think it was an oath bound society; I do not be- 
lieve that the\ r had grips and passwords. In fact I have been 
led to think that it was more informal, as the discussion has 

fone on, than it seemed at first sight to many to have been; 
ut I do still feel, dear Brethren, that you will all have to ad- 
mit that it has involved itself in a cloud of mystery, of just 
the kind that awakens apprehension in the minds of the 
people Now, people are not very much afraid of that which 
is out in the open field, where they know they can meet it; 
hut their nature and all their experience, has made th^m ap- 
prehensive of a meeting that is held within our bounds and 
with reference to the existence of this church, and which is a 
secret, inside of which they cannot be admitted. We had the 
intimation awhile ago that the Minutes of this Meeting were 
In the private diary, perhaps of the Secretary of the Meet- 
ing, and that whoever was intimate enough to get access to 



152 



STENOGRAPHIC REPORT. 



his private diary might find out what was in the Minutes, 
which was an intimation to other people that they wouldn't 
be likely to see them. When the question was raised about 
the official Minutes of this Meeting in the trial, the Moderator 
said it would be a good thing if they could just be laid on the 
table of Presbytery. They were not. Now I submit to your 
calm judgment that there is that element in it that was calcu- 
lated to awaken apprehensions. And I am the more anxious- 
that you should recognize the facts that caused that appre- 
hension, because it expresses itself in very strong terms in 
memorials, and the brothers have made their defence largely 
on the idea that it was that needless alarm which has wrought 
all the mischief. Well, it is not strange there was an alarm 
when this was pretended to be the revelation of what the 
Meeting was, and no one was able to find out facts that would 
deny what was therein stated. 

1 pass to the next point, and that is, that there was a plat- 
form adopted. 1 think I shall not take the time to read the 
Platform, it is so familiar to you, but it is introduced in this- 
way: "We, the undersigned, agree together in the mainte- 
nance of the following principles." The point I wish to 
make in connection with that is this : That there was reason 
to believe an organization was foj med. We had the fact of a 
meeting, and the secrecy of it. Now, I say, there was reason 
to believe that an organization was formed. The Gazette in 
the article to which 1 have alluded has, as one of its head 
lines, "An Organization Formed,* 1 and goes on to give partic- 
ulars about officers, 1 about the establishment of headquarters,, 
about a certain enrollment to be made, and all that. It may 
be said that this is simply a newspaper report and not at all 
reliable. My Brethren, I admit that it is a very unsafe thing 
to proceed on newspaper reports; but I submit to you, also, 
that there was evidence of an organization, apart from the 
newspaper report; that at least made it reasonable to suppose 
there was an organization at this time. 

I wish to refer here to a letter that appeared in the Com- 
?nercial Gazette on August 22nd, a little over a month after 
this meeting was held. It professes to be an interview with 
the Kev. Dr. McClurkin and expi esses his opinion of the 
recent Elders' Convention. I lead this clause, which is given 
in quotation marks as his own words: "We organized this- 
society,' 1 said he, "and adopted a Platform which contained 
principles which we contend are right and according to 
scriptural teachings. We sent copies of this Platform broad- 
cast so that others in the church might read and understand 
our position on the great question.' 1 I shall not read more 
than that. I read it for the purpose of showing you that 
whether there was an organization or not, the church having, 
in the first place, this declaration that there was an organiza- 
tion in the Commercial Gazette, and then about a month after. 



THURSDAY. JUNE 4. 



155 



when there ha'd been some discussion, having- this statement, 
that purported to be an interview, from one who was known to 
have been present at the East End Meeting, and the most 
prominent man in it. declaring that they formed a society and 
adopted a platform for this purpose, that it was not an 
unreasonable thing that we did think there was an organiza- 
tion formed. Indeed, I do not see how we could have 
thought anything else. There was nothing contradictory to- 
it known to us. and we had this evidence of its truth, that 
seemed to be authentic. 

The language they used themselves looks to me very much 
like what you would find in an organization : -We. the under- 
signed, agree together in the maintenance of the following- 
principles." I submit to you. Brethren, that that is not the 
form of resolutions. It is not the usual method of expressing* 
an opinion by an unorganized body. "We agree together in 
the maintenance of the following principles." It is an enroll- 
ment. -We. the undersigned." That means an enrollment, 
don't it? ••We, the undersigned agree." It is an agreement. 
That means an association, does it not. of those who are en- 
rolled? ••For the maintenance of the following principles.** 
Why. Brethren, for men who understood the use of words r 
and who had met for explanations that there might be no 
misunderstanding, to put out a document that the}* themselves 
declared this to be, — "We the undersigned agree together in 
the maintenance of a certain platform "of principles." and not 
intend that people should think they were organized for that 
purpose, is to me a remarkable state of affairs. 

But I want you to notice that that heading is not what the 
newspapers have said: it was the title to"the Platform as it 
came from this meeting. It is explained that they were 
simply explaining private opinions. I submit to you that that 
is a very peculiar~forin of keeping up your private opinions. 
••We agree together that we will maintain the following- 
private"opinions." Does that mean that you are going to act 
as individuals, but each man of you binds himself "that he will 
never change his views'? We have heard a good deal of the 
right to discuss and come into larger views "of things. But 
these brethren have agreed together and have definitely 
organized: not a public kind of an organization, but they 
have agreed together to maintain the following principles as- 
private" opinion. Xone of them are to change without the 
consent of the others, I suppose, his personal views: that 
private view which he holds for himself, because they declare 
they do not mean an organization. I submit that whatever 
they thought, they put out that Platform. We have them 
doing that. They thought they organized for this purpose. 
And now that is all I want to say with reference to the belief 
that there was an organization. 

My Brethren, that brings me to the first question I have to 



154 



STENOGRAPHIC REPORT. 



meet in my personal defence. It was pointed out this morning 
that the pastor of the Beaver Falls session had sent to Pres- 
bytery in his own handwriting, a memorial, which is here, 
and which declared that this was an organization. Happily I 
am in possesion of that memorial this afternoon, and I want 
you to judge of the vicious spirit that underlay that memorial 
and framed it, and I submit it to yon: "To the Moderator and 
other Members of the Pittsburgh Presbytery : Dear Fathers 
and Brethren : It is with unfeigned sorrow that the session of 
Beaver Falls congregation addresses to you this memorial in 
Teference to the course of events in our church. The last 
Synod having permitted a free and untrammelled discussion 
of the distinctive position so long held unquestioned by the 
Covenanter church, and having by an overhelming vote 
•declared its unwillingnesb to depart from her historic ground, 
we had confidently hoped the church would be permitted to 
go forward in her work without further distraction. In this 
we have been disappointed. With grief and pain we have 
learned that in disregard of the express instruction of Synod 
our brethren of the minority have felt called upon to re-open 
the discussion in a more aggressive and dangerous way than 
before. Under the plea of Christian union they have formed 
an org miration and formulated a platform, setting forth views 
in direct opposition to the doctrines and practices that are 
fundamental to our church, and have declared their belief 
that such views are in accordance with the Scriptures and in 
harmony with our subordinate standards." 

I do not believe they could have stated it more fully than 
that themselves. Beaver Falls session said in their memorial 
that they claimed the Platform was in harmony with the 
Scriptures and with our subordinate standards: ''In view of 
this fact your Memorialists feel constrained to ask Presbytery 
to interpose by its authority to protect the church for the 
iollowing among other reasons: First. Because this is an 
attempt which if successful will lead the church into sinful 
apostasy and covenant breaking; and even if unsuccessful, the 
persistent agitation will retard her growth in numbers and 
seriously affect her growth in grace.'" 

Now, my Brethren, there are those dreadful words, — apos- 
tasy and covenant breaking, — and you will notice it is said 
that it U the conviction of Beaver Falls session that the posi- 
tion which they have taken is contrary to the Scriptures and 
to our subordinate standards and to our covenant; and they 
only say here, dear Brethren, that if a movement like this, 
orginized in the church, succeeds, it means the apostasy of 
the Covenanter church and the breach of her covenant before 
Ood. Now. that was the conviction of Beaver Falls session, 
sent to the Presbytery under whose care it is, with its grief 
and sorrow expressed, and with the frankest statement that 
these brethren thought their position Scriptural, or claimed 



THURSDAY, JUNE 4. 



155 



it to be Scriptural. But. our conviction was, if their move- 
ment went on successfully, that our church would turn her 
back on her covenant. I submit to you, the Beaver Falls ses- 
sion thinks so still. 

These brethren talk about using hard words. Well. I could 
j-ead to you, if I thought best to take your time, a little of 
what Dr. A. M. Milligan, who has been referred to so often, 
says about the departure from our covenants and our profes- 
sion, to show you that those awful words of covenant break- 
ing and apostasy were not used for the first time in this con- 
nection. 

The second reason is: "Because this movement tends to 
•cripple all our educational and missionary boards, by weak- 
ening the efforts of the church, awakening distrust and 
wasting her energies in unprofitable discussion. For the 
brethren identified with this movement we beseech you to use 
all possible. means to reclaim them from their misguided and 
unhappy course; but failing in this that you take measures to 
secure their removal from their positions as public teachers, 
•either as professors or pastors or missionaries, which they have 
received from the hand of the church on a profession which 
they no longer believe or maintain, and against which they are 
using their influence." Now. as I have stated, the first part 
recognized that they believed it to be in harmony with the 
subordinate standards ; but the thought in our minds in the 
presentation of this memorial was, it was not as they under- 
stood it, but on the impression produced by it: "It is our 
further conviction that in these circumstances Presbytery 
should carefully discriminate with regard to views," ' and 
so on. 

Now, you have heard that these memorials had brought 
trouble and harm, and that the pastor of this particular session 
was to blame for it. I submit to you that that is a frank, sor- 
rowful and earnest expression of a conviction with regard to 
n certain course ; that it breathes the spirit of love for those 
engaged in it, and love for the church whose interests are at 
stake. And I am willing to submit it to the brethren them- 
selves as to whether it calls for such eloquence as we have 
listened to this morning. Why did I write that? Attention 
was called to the fact that in writing that memorial I said 
there was an organization formed. You see I did. I have 
submitted to you the authority on which I said it. I thought 
it was sufficient. It was the conviction reached in my mind 
from this declaration in the Gazette that was given out as 
authoritative, from the fact that there was no contradiction 
by them, from the platform in my hands, from the fact that 
such views were given out, by themselves. From a,ll these, 
it was my conviction, as well as that of my brethren, that an 
organization had been formed. If I stated an untruth there, I 
stated it with the conviction that is was a truth, and I want 



156 



STENOGRAPHIC REPORT. 



you to keep that in your mind, so that when we come to the 
next part of it you will remember that I have cleared my 
skirts with reference to the statement in the memorial as to 
any intentional misrepresentation of the brethren. 

My next point is that this Platform, adopted at this Meeting, 
is subversive of the fundamental position of the church, and 
of our Testimony in chapter 30. I do not intend, my Brethren, 
to go into the argument with reference to the principles of 
this Platform, but I simply read two or three statements in 
support of this view, which was the basis of our action. I 
read from the Testimony, chapter 30. '-It is the duty of 
Christians, for the sake of peace and order, and in humble 
resignation to God's good providence, to conform to the com- 
mon regulations of society in things lawful; but to profess 
allegiance to no constitution of government which is in 
hostility to the kingdom of Christ, the Head of the Church, 
and the Prince of the kings of the earth." The first error is : 
''That it is lawful to profess or swear allegiance to an im- 
moral constitution of civil government." 

The second thing 1 read is from our Covenant. In the con- 
fession of sin we say: -'The nation refuses to own its 
responsibility to God and to the Mediator, to recognize the. 
supremacy of the Bible in national affairs, and to counte- 
nance and encourage the true Christian religion." What 
nation? Our nation. '-Atheists, infidels, and all. classes of 
vile men, are made constitutionally eligible to the most re- 
sponsible positions under the government. Consonant with 
these essential defects, the history of the government has 
been largely one of oppression and injustice towards its ab- 
original and colored people, and of iniquitous distinction of 
caste; while Sabbath desecration, prostitution of the oath, 
official corruption and dishonesty, profanation of the name of 
Gocl, murder, drunkenness, excess and rioting, violation of, 
the ordinance of marriage, vanity of apparel, sinful extrava- 
gance, lying and deceit, — are become common and ordinary 
sins." That is in the confession of sin. The engagement to 
duty I think you well recollect. I wish to read simply the 
last part of it : '-We take ourselves sacredly bound to regulate 
all our civil relations, attachments, professions and deport- 
ment, by our allegiance and loyalty to the Lord, our King, 
Lawgiver and Judge; and by this, our oath, we are pledged 
to promote the interests of public order and justice, to sup- 
port cheerfully whatever is for the good of the common- 
wealth in which we dwell, and to pursue this object in all 
things not forbidden by the law of God, or inconsistent with 
public dissent from an unscriptural and immoral civil power. 
We will pray and labor for the peace and welfare of our 
country, and for its reformation by a constitutional recogni- 
tion of God as the source of all power, of Jesus Christ as the 
Ruler of Nations, of the Holy Scriptures as the supreme rule. 



THURSDAY, JUNE 4. 



157 



and of the true Christian religion; and we will continue to 
refuse to incorporate by any act, with the political body, 
until this blessed reformation has been secured.'" That is 
what we have sworn. If any one suggests, as is suggested, 
that that does not specifically bind this church to a practical 
political dissent from the government of the United States by 
any act of incorporation, I cannot see how they understand it. 
If any one in this church denies that the exercise of the right 
of suffrage is an act of incorporation, 1 am not able to under- 
stand how they have sworn this covenant. And. my Breth- 
ren, if we took that covenant with the understanding that 
such act of citizenship is an act of incorporation, then I take 
it that any platform that undertakes to lead the- church away 
Iroin insistence upon that as a term of communion, is under- 
taking to lead the church into apostasy and into a breach of 
her Covenant. 

I submit to-day, it is the conviction of the church that 
when the principles of the East End Platform prevail, ac- 
€ording as they are explained by the brethren themselves, 
this church will cease to be a church standing apart from the 
political institutions in this land as a witness for Jesus Christ, 
our Lord, Xow I do not know whether any one made that 
statement or not. I do not know whether they meant it. But 
I do know that the principles of the East End Platform are 
not in harmony with our standards, that it is subversive; and 
if that is true, and Pittsburgh Presbytery came to the conclu- 
sion that it is true, with regard to the East End Platform, 
what followed necessarily? Why, it was propagated. If that 
is correct, and if it meant that, then, my Brethren, it meant 
the very thing which this Synod said should cease to go on. 
It certainly meant the very thing to which this Synod referred 
when it said it should cease. If that be true, then the question 
is: Was this Platform propagated? Well, it was published in 
the papers ; it was sent by the official secretary of the Meet- 
ing for issuance through the magazines of the church; it was 
issued in tract form, and sent out over the church in a circu- 
lar form, as Dr. McClurkin says, "scattered broadcast," in 
order that it might go everywhere. 

Xow I submit to you that that is a specific fact. This Plat- 
form declares they will maintain these principles. They were 
their private opinions, we are told; they were issued for ex- 
planation; but. they were private opinions given to the 
public, and to be maintained before the public. There is the 
second point, the clear, definite fact. You have, first, the law 
of Synod, the direction to the Presbyteries. You have now a 
specific act occurring a few weeks after, and that is its char- 
acter. It was a meeting, a secret meeting; it was an organi- 
zation as then understood, later it was supposed to be an 
organization; it issued a platform that was subversive of this 



158 



STENOGRAPHIC REPORT 



fundamental principle, and it was propagated. The result 
was, there was agitation. 

III. My next point is that this fact was brought before the 
Presbytery in a regular way. I want you to remember that 
this specific fact was brought to the attention of our Presby- 
tery in a regular way. I may say. I think the Presbytery 
would have acted immediately on her knowledge of this fact 
if there had been no memorials. As soon as the announce- 
ment of this Meeting was published the editor of one of our 
magazines said. ♦'This will require the attention of the 
courts." It struck me so, when these facts were sent out. 
Why, I think it struck all our people in that way. It was- 
several months until Presbytery would meet. The question 
was, can an organization like this be allowed to go on until 
the Presbytery convenes? It will certainly require attention 
when it comes together. But, can it wait for the meeting of 
Presbytery '? 

This fact was brought before Presbytery in the regular 
way. In the tirst place, by a memorial from the Elders' 
Convention, of which some of you have heard. I wish to 
read an item or two from this memorial. I take the quotation 
from the report of the Committee on Discipline : "Paper 
Xo. 5. This is a communication signed by the Assistant 
Clerk «of this Court as the Secretary of a Convention of Elders 
of this Presbytery, held in the Allegheny R. P. church. Aug. 
12, 1890, including the call under'which the Convention as- 
sembled; the signatures to the call and the enrollment of 
members, numbering 59 names, representing the sessions of 
Allegheny, Beaver Falls, Central Allegheny, Little Beaver, 
McKeesport, Miller's Run, Pine Creek. Union, Pittsburgh. 
Parnassus, Salem. Wilkinsburgh and Youngstown." You. I 
think, heard. Brethren, that there was no paper before 
Pittsburgh Presbytery from any congregation having a liberal 
pastor, with reference to this state of affairs. Did vou not? 

Rev. J. F. CROZIER : Yes, sir. 

Dr. GEORGE : There is the first paper alluded to in this 
report of the Committee on Discipline. My Brethren, it is 
the paper about which these men have complained the most, 
— the call for the Elders' Convention. They have regarded 
it as about the worst paper that came, the most dangerous 
one, and the most hurtful one. I want you to notice that 
there were representatives in that Elders' Convention of at 
least six of the seven of these congregations having liberal 
pastors. l^ow, that raises another point about which I am 
going to be very particular, and in regard to which I want 
your attention. My brother, Mr. Reed, in making statements 
in regard to this paper, stated on his word that it contained 
forged names. That raises a possibility that the names of all 
these elders from liberal congregations, or congregations, 
having liberal pastors, are forgeries, and I want to do some- 



THURSDAY, JUNE 4. 



15£ 



thing towards the settlement of that question. I confess to 
you, it was one of the most startling things to me that it 
should be stated before this Court, and before this audience, 
that the Elders' Convention was called with forged names to 
the call. Well, they were the names of elders, for it was 
the elders that got up the call and^issued it. 1 happened, my 
Brethren, to be absent from my home for three weeks at the 
time this Convention was called. There was talk of it before 
I left home. But I was called to the bedside of my brother, 
who with three or four of his family was lying in fever, and 
for weeks I watched in his home, in scenes between life and 
death, night and day, and I had little time for intercourse or 
talk with other men, or taking very particular notice of what 
passed. While I was there this call was issued about which 
there had been some talk before I left home. It was not 
issued, as I understand (though I am not perfectly sure) by 
any elder of my church. I am sure it was not written by any 
one of them, i will give you that as a matter of fact in con- 
nection with all the other things you have heard. My 
brother, Mr. Reed, brought this matter up on the floor of 
Presbytery. He arose and stated, on one occasion, that there 
were forged names to that call. I knew that an elder of my 
church had some connectton with the issuance of it, and I 
rose at once and said. --That seems to me to be so serious a 
charge that in behalf of one with whom [ am interested, and 
who is not here. I must challenge the statement and ask our 
brother to state the names .of the elders that are forged.' ' 
He gave me the names, if I recollect, of two elders from his 
own church. Am I right. Brother Reed? 
Rev. H. W. REED: Yes, sir. 

Dr. GEORGE: I am right. The elder representing his 
church on the floor of Presbytery came to his feet at once and 
said, "Mr. Moderator, that is not correct, the names of those 
men were authorized to be put on.'' Now, I ask, as a question 
of privilege, as one of those men is now a member of this 
Court, — Elder John Ewing from Youngstown,— that at this 
point he be allowed to rise and make a statement to this 
Court. I would like Brother Reed to state whether these are 
the names to which he referred. 

Rev. H. W. REED : They are. 

Dr. GEORGE : These forged names include the name of 
Elder John Ewing, and I want the Court to hear from him in 
regard to these forged names. 

The MODERATOR : A question of privilege is raised. Mr. 
John Ewing will please state to this Court the circumstances 
with regard to his name being attached to this call for the 
Elders' Convention. 

Mr. JOHN EWING: Mr. Moderator, this is a plain and 
direct statement of the facts in the case. This is a true state- 
ment of the facts with respect to my name being on the list of" 



160 



STENOGRAPHIC REPORT. 



the call for the Elders' Convention. Shortly after the East 
End Convention it came there in the daily paper, and created 
some excitement, with some members of the congregation. 
The members of the session, the elders, held a kind of con- 
ference, and I told them I thought all we had to do now was 
to pass a resolution, or resolutions, condemning the East End 
Meeting, and we did so. Those resolutions were published 
by Mr. Pritehard, in the Christian Nation. Well, a few days 
afterwards thej r came witu a call for the Elders' Convention. 
I live about 11 miles from the city of Youngstown. out in the 
countiy. Four members live in the city of Youngstown. 
They couldn't reach me, they hadn't time to get there, and 
after consulting among themselves they thought it wouldn't 
do me justice unless I had an opportunity of signing the call, 
and they attached my name to that call and notified me by 
mail what they had done, and I told them 1 was glad the} r 
had. done so, that I wanted my name attached to it. Now, 
Mr. Moderator, I am not ashamed of having my name attached 
to that call; I glory in it. Those are the facts in the case. 

Rev. H. W. KEED : 1 wish to ask Mr. Ewing if he did not 
state to me either in his own house or in my house, 1 do not 
know which, that he knew nothing of his name being on the 
call for the Elders' Convention until he saw it in print? 
Mr. JOHN EWING: I did. 
The Mi >DERATOR : State your answer again. 
Mr. JOHN EWING : I say, I did. I told him they sent me 
word by mail of what they had done, but before I got the 
mail the published call was printed and came out, and I was 
perfectly satisfied my name was there. 

Dr. GEORGE: That is all I know about those forged 
names. Our brother did not give any names, and it was only 
because of my former experience that 1 was able to hx what 
he had reference to. Now. I want to tix in your minds that 
if that call was issued from Beaver Falls (I do not know 
whether it was or not), and these names were attached at 
Beaver Falls, the men at Beaver Falls who issued the call had 
the authority of the session of Youngstown for the attachment 
of those names to the call, and there was no forgery at Beaver 
Falls. We have not proved yet that we are not liars, but I 
want you to understand that so far as anything before this 
Court, we have vindicated ourselves from the reflection upon 
us of having forged names to a document of that kind. 

The memorials came to Pittsburgh Presbytery, and the 
most important and most weighty, 1 suppose, was this one 
which referred to so many congregations? — thirteen congrega- 
tions and fifty-nine elders. Now, I would not dwell on this 
Elders' Convention, because 3011 nave not the right to decide 
whether it was right or wrong, but it had its weight in Pitts- 
burgh Presbytery. It was a weighty paper. It represented 
a large class of people. You have all heard it characterized 



THURSDAY, JUNE 4. 



161 



as strongly as these men were able to do it. I want you to 
remember, it bears the name of David Uregg, of whom some 
of you have heard as a man connected with the Reformed 
Presbyterian church. It bears the name of John A. McKee, 
of Samuel McNaugher, of John T. Morton ; I could not begin 
to give the names on it. . 

Rev. E. M. MILLIGAN: I made the statement that none 
of Parnassus session were on that call, and I made that as- 
sertion by Mr. Copeland's word. 

Dr. GEORGE: 1 would like, as a question of privilege, 
you would ask Mr. Dodds whether he had any communi- 
cation with Mr. Copeland on that subject. (Mr. John A. 
Dodds arose.) The question I ask of you is, whether you had 
any communication from Elder A. B. Copeland with refer- 
ence to the Elders 1 Convention, or the call for it? 

Mr. JOHN A. DODDS : Yes, sir, I had. We wrote to him 
about it, and he wrote a long letter endorsing the movement 
thoroughly, and ordered his name to be put on the call. He 
said he did. not know whether he would be there or not, but 
he was present at the first session. 

The MODERATOR: Some members of the Court say they 
did not hear the answer. 

Mr. JOHN" A. DODDS: I had a letter from him. I wrote 
to him about the Convention stating 

Dr. GEORGE: From whom? 

Mr. JOHN A. DODDS: From A. B. Copeland. Stating 
he was in favor of the meeting, endorsing the movement, and 
ordering his name to be put on the call ; stating also he did 
not know whether he could be present or not, but he would if 
possible. He was present, and was chairman, I believe, of 
the first session of that Elders 1 meeting. 

Dr. GEORGE : That accords with my recollection. I ob- 
served the remarks of the pastor of the Parnassus church that 
his church was not represented, either in the call or in the 
Convention, and I thought I remembered that Elder A. B. 
Copeland, a member of Synod's Board of Trustees, and a 
prominent elder in that church, represented them in the 
Elders' Convention as the President of the first meeting; and 
I think his name is attached to" the memorial sent to Pitts- 
burgh Presbytery. I say, this communication from the 
Elders 1 Convention carried weight in the Presbytery because 
of its representative character. This Elders 1 Convention asked 
two things : '-1. That this Convention of Elders of Pittsburgh 
Presbytery not only reaffirms our position in doctrine, wor- 
ship and practice, as it always has been held by the church, 
but would also respectfully ask Presbytery to take notice of 
any violation of the same. 2. That we respectfully inform 
Presbytery that we are opposed to the licensing of students, 
and to the ordination and installation of any one who assails 
openly or secretly the well known practical application of our 



162 



STENOGRAPHIC REPORT. 



Testimony." That was the import of the communication 
from this Convention to Presbytery. In addition to this letter 
from the Elders' Convention there were memorials from seven 
congregations. 

I wish to read again this language from the report of the 
Committee on Discipline : "In view of all these facts it does 
not seem possible for Presbytery to disregard the appeals 
made to her, and if possible to allay this unhappy difficulty. 
These brethren preferring to those who have been named) are 
either guilty of a great wrong and should be called to ac- 
count, or they are greatly misunderstood and grossly mis- 
represented, and should be vindicated." That is what Pres- 
bytery said. They complain so about the character of the 
memorial being so severe in charging such hard things. 
Presbytery said (and bear in mind that it is this same chair- 
man of the Committee on Discipline, to whom they refer as 
having formulated all these dreadful things, who said in his 
report to Presbytery :) "These brethren are either guilty of a 
great wrong, and should be called to account, or they are 
greatly misunderstood and grossly misrepresented, and should 
be vindicated." You all believe that, I think. '-The papers 
submitted are not inspired by ill will or malice." If they had 
been, the Presbytery would not have taken any notice of 
them. But they were not inspired by malice, because these 
men could have no such motive for sending them there. The 
Moderator might have a bad motive ; a member of the Court 
might have, but these elders, all over the church, did not 
have. "And it is evidently the most cherished hope and de- 
sire that investigation will let in the light, and the darkness 
will flee away. They also urge that the most earnest efforts 
be made to restore these brethren to the faith and practice of 
the church, and to avoid by every possible means the separa- 
tion of beloved pastors from their flocks, and the removal of 
gifted laborers from their fields of work." That is what this 
committee said to Presbytery that these memorialists said ; 
that while they had to use these terms in regard to them, they 
asked Presbytery to use the most earnest endeavors to save 
these brethren to the church. 

Oh, I tell you, my Brethren, I have not been able to listen 
with perfect quiet to-day to the stigma that was attempted to 
be put upon the noble band of elders in the Pittsburgh Pres- 
bytery. The elders love this church; they have built up it» 
institutions with their thousands and tens of thousands ; they 
have stood for their defence through all these years, and 
when they saw that announcement put out in the papers, that 
principles so dear to them had been assailed in this way, by 
what they believed to be an organization, from this inspira- 
tion they made their earnest appeal to Presbytery that it 
should not allow this work to go on, but step into the breach 
and stop it. And I remember how old Mr. McKee, who lies 



THURSDAY, JUNE 4. 



163 



to-day at the gate of heaven, and with the glory of the 
heavens shining in his face, was helped down the aisle of the 
church and took his place, his face white as the sheet before 
me, his hand trembling with feebleness, and old Father 
Sproull, who was like him, and how they uttered the most 
earnest and pathetic words with reference to the attack upon 
the church, and that she should be loyal to her King and 
faithful to her trust. And when I hear men trying to blacken 
the character of the men who signed that call, I ask. Who are 
these men that dare to stand before the Synod of this church 
and charge men of this character with these words of ill- 
timed utterance, and hold them up to scorn? I tell you, my 
friends, they were men of conviction ; they were men who 
know what the Covenanter church means and what it stands 
for, and what its work is ; and 1 thank God there are men 
that, if her ministers prove unfaithful, intend to stand for the 
principles of the church. I think we shall bless God to the 
day of our death that in the crisis of the church's history 
these men came to the front, and they turned the tide. I tell 
you, that was the hour of our church's deliverance. And I 
say these things because memorials are on this table from 
different parts of the church, expressing their condemnation 
of these men in this Elders* Convention. I stand for them 
to-day, and, as Elder John Ewing said, I am proud to stand 
with them; and I tell you, the day will come when other men 
will be ashamed they did not stand with them. 

I will tell you another thing. It has been said here we had 
better wait for the voice of the people. I will speak for the 
people as well as for the elders. There are at least eight 
people who were invited to the Elders" Convention as dea- 
cons, and several elders not there in exercise of their office 
and who asked the opportunity of enrolling themselves with 
the elders. Not less than eight of those men. since that time, 
the people in their churches have made eiders. They took 
their stand, honoring Christ, and he has honored them, and 
there are several of them on the floor of this Court. Yes. it 
is worth while to be true, and you can bear the ignominy men 
seek to heap upon you if you only do the will of the Lord. 
There was no malice in it ; there was not an unkind word in 
it. There was an earnest appeal in it that you would save the 
young men to the church, but it did say to save the church. — 
save her to the truth and to her principles. I have called to 
your attention the fact that we had the authority of Synod. 
I have called to your attention that we had memorials from 
our churches of such standing that no Presbytery would 
think of being regardless of them. Xow, this is the first place 
you have Pittsburgh Presbytery acting. 

I now begin with the way Pittsburgh Presbytery proceeded. 
She begins at this point. The Elders' Convention is not on 
trial here, but Pittsburgh Presbytery listened to their petition 



164 



STENOGRAPHIC REPORT. 



and to these memorials, and. she begins to act at this point. 
Let us see how she went forward. There has been a good 
deal said about a certain rule, and I want to read to you trorn 
page 69. of our Book of Discipline: '-Offences which are 
private, either personal transgressions, affecting only one or 
a few. or any other scandal known only to a few. are." if pos- 
sible, to be settled without giving the scandal any greater de- 
gree of publicity, according to the rule in such cases pro- 
vided. Matt, xviii, 15-17." This is the passage about visiting 
your brother and seeking reconciliation. You have heard a 
great deal about it. have you not? One of the things charged 
against this Presbytery as unjust and wrongis, failure to com- 
ply with this rule, and one member of Presbytery and another, 
some noted teacher, some prominent instructor, have been 
named out as never having visited these brethren and sought 
reconciliation, and the rule said they ought to do so. Well, 
brethren, this is to me a remarkable interpretation of that 
rule. It is said said that before these men signed the memo- 
rials they ought to have visited these brethren and sought re- 
conciliation. Well, what about the two or three hundred men 
in the east that memorialized about Pittsburgh Presbytery? 
Was it the duty of these men to come on and visit the Pitts- 
burgh Presbytery, interview us and seek a reconciliation or 
an understanding about what we could and should have done 
before they sent their memorials here? Was it the duty of the 
congregations sending up these memorials to set out them- 
selves visiting, going around among these seven ministers, 
and interviewing them about their views? Why. that is the 
most marvellous understanding of the Scripture ever I heard. 

What did these memorialists do? They sent word to Pres- 
bytery of their difficulty, and they asked Presbytery to act 
upon it. The Presbytery is the accuser, and nobody else. If 
any one wants to libel any member for not having made this 
public matter his private matter, they may undertake that 
under the law; but the Presbytery is the accuser here, and I 
am defending Presbytery, and now the questiou is. Did Pres- 
bytery proceed Scripturally ? 

What did Presbytery do? First of all, we tried reconcili- 
ation, and then begins the discipline. That is just what we 
did. --Your Committee therefore recommend : 1. That the 
consideration of this report be preceded by a season of rever- 
ent devotion and prayer to God. during which we engage 
ourselves to draw very near to the Searcher of all our hearts, 
and to cherish the most tender and fraternal regard among 
ourselves, and that we will faithfully follow the light which 
God shall vouchsafe to us in answer to our humble prayers." 
We had that season of prayer the first thing. Who prayed? 
Brother Milligan told us this morning he prayed. Brother 
McAllister who was in the chair askedThim to pray. 1 see by 
the record, and it is a little remarkable we have it here ; Prof. 



THURSDAY, JUNE 4. 



165 



J. K. McClurkin prayed, Dr. Sproull prayed, Elder Glasgow 
prayed, Elder Magee prayed, and some others whose names 1 
cannot recall. 

Eev. O. B. MILLIGAN : I would say, Dr. McAllister asked 
me to pray in that meeting. 

Dr. GEOKGE : True. sir. I call attention to the fact be- 
cause this was the beginning of the trouble, that Dr. McAllis- 
ter was in the chair, and he asked both Prof. McClurkin and 
J. K. J. Miliigan, two men who afterwards fell under censure 
(and one was suspended and the other withdrew), and he 
asked them to lead in that devotion. Our record says there 
were three psalms sung. What do you think they were? 
They were the 133rd, 122nd, and the 15th, it is in the record. 
Who gave out the 15th psalm? The pastor of Parnassus 
church gave it out. "Who doth not slander with his tongue 
nor to his friend to hurt.' 1 We all understood what was 
meant; it was intended to be a reflection of his sentiment. 
That is the only thing that was not exactly, as it seemed to 
me, in the spirit with which the rest of us entered upon the 
devotion. I call attention to it because I want you to mark 
every step of this way, for you are going to determine 
whether we had injustice and wrong in our hearts, and this is 
very important. We began with a prayer meeting; it was of 
a conciliatory character, and those concerning whom the dif- 
ficulty was, were asked to take their full part in it and did. 
We were brethren at that hour. 

Now, I can say to you that that was one of the most solemn 
hours in our Presbytery. We have not often prayed in our 
Presbyteries very much, because we have a great deal of 
business. We were that day humble in His sight, and we did 
pray, and I will tell you another thing; in that hour of prayer 
we got hold of the hand of our Lord, and we have gone for- 
ward in this work conscious of his presence. We have not 
any question about it in our minds. We had the prayer meet- 
ing. Now there followed the next step towards this work. 
Was this a scheme for getting evidence? -'2. That following 
this hour of prayer an opportunity shall be given to all the 
brethren named to make such statements in regard to the 
matters set forth in these memorials as they think it best; 
that, if possible, by the most frank, open and candid expres- 
sion of views and purposes we may come to see eye to eye, 
and mutual confidence be restored/'' Now remember. Breth- 
ren, we are taking the first Scriptural step. If it were a 
private matter, how would you go about it? Why you would 
say, "My brother, what have you to say? You are charged 
with this wrong. Explain it if you can.' 1 That is the way 
you would seek reconciliation. You would go to your brother 
for his explanation. That is what we did. We* said, "You 
shall have an opportunity for whatever you wish to say." 



166 



STENOGRAPHIC REPORT. 



The language is very carefully worded: "To make such 
statements as they think best.'' 

Now, the occurrence did take place to which reference was 
made. A member rose and said he had a suspicion awakened; 
he was afraid it was an effort to get evidence. I grant you 
that was said. And I grant you that I rose and said that I 
thought it was unkind to say that that was a scheme. It did 
hurt, my dear Brethren, to find this surmise just at that point. 
We had prayed together. I had prayed sincerely. At the 
next step there was a suspicion that I was trying to draw out 
evidence to affect somebody. That hurt me, and I did say, 
"Now I think that is unkind/' And I said, "I hope they will 
notice there is no obligation to make any statement, and no 
brother is urged to speak any word he does not feel free to 
utter, and so I clear nryself for any responsibilit3 r of what he 
may say.'' It was just as frank and open a thing as one man 
can do with another; and the statements were made, and I 
think they were frank and open statements in a very great 
measure. As I seem to have qualified my language, "in a very 
great measure," I will explain later wherein they were not 
full, frank and open. 

We had the statements made by these brethren, and when 
these statements were heard, then we took the next step, try- 
ing to see if we could effect a reconciliation. We went about 
submitting papers; we had thx-ee papers, one. by Dr. McAllis- 
ter, one by Dr. Willson and another by Dr. J. W. Sproull. 
These three papers were one after another taken up, talked 
over and put aside. One did not suit, and another and an- 
other. None of them would be accepted by a suffficient 
number to go through, and so the conclusion was reached 
that we could not effect a reconciliation there. 

The recommendation of the Committee was that there 
should be a judicial commission appointed. I believe that 
was our first recommendation, that there shall be a judicial 
commission appointed with certain authority with reference 
to the preliminaries of a trial. The Presbytery finding itself 
not able to reach this conclusion or agreement, and yet not 
satisfied to give up the effort, made this proposition, that this 
Committee should be appointed with a view to continue their 
effort in the direction of this recommendation. Our first 
recommendation (and Dr. Sproull who was on the Committee 
will recollect it) was that we were to exhaust all efforts at 
reconciliation; if we failed, then a commission should be ap- 
pointed as a preliminary commission to inquire as to the 
charges and the libels and the witnesses by which they would 
be sustained. But Presbytery was intent on a reconciliation, 
although she had failed, ahd they changed the report so as to 
read that th^y should continue their efforts seeking a recon- 
ciliation; and then, in case they still failed, that they should 
bring in their report so and so. 



THURSDAY, JUNE 4. 



167 



Now, I want to get at this question in regard to the con- 
fusion about a com mission" or a '-committee. " I want to 
say first of all that I believe there is an honest conviction in 
the minds of these young brethren, and there was then an 
honest conviction in their minds that the Presbytery appoint- 
ed a commission with reference to that matter, and that its 
settlement would be final. I am sure that the chairman of 
the Commission thought so, because he spoke of having noti- 
fied them it was- a commission; and I do know that when we 
met in the morning he did constitute it as a commission when 
we came together; but I had the Minute of our appointment, 
and when I read it it said that we were a judicial committee. 
And now, Brethren, you come to the critical test with refer- 
ence to my integrity in regard to that report. I will ask the 
clerk to read the Minute he has in regard to that. (The clerk 
read as follows :) 

"Statement of Rev. H. W. Reed, made Wednesday morn- 
ing, June 3rd, 1891. There is strong circumstantial evidence 
that the chairman of the Committee on Discipline, after Pres- 
bytery adjourned, changed the word "Commission" in the 
resolution or the report of the Committee on Discipline to 
"Committee," and in this same resolution inserted the words, 
"and if successful to call a special meeting of Presbytery for 
its consideration." 

Dr. GEORGE: Have you those circumstances to which 
allusion was made? 

The CLERK: No, sir. 

Dr. GEORGE : Mr. Moderator, will you ask Brother Reed 
to call to the mind of the Court the circumstances to which 
he alludes, which go to show that the chairman of this Com- 
mittee changed the report? 

The MODERATOR: Mr. Reed will please come to the 
front and make the statement. 

Rev. H. W. REED : Mr. Moderator, the first circumstance, 
as far as I remember just now and as I stated yesterday, was 
the statement to me by the clerk of Pittsburgh Presbytery, 
that he never received the original copy of the report of the 
Committee on Discipline, but that a corrected copy had been 
given him. The second statement, or the second circum- 
stance upon which I base my statement was, in the original 
paper in the hands of the clerk of Pittsburgh Presbytery, the 
report of the Committee on Supplies in which the language 
"Judicial Com." is used, and then the syllables '-mittee" in- 
serted afterwards by lead pencil. That to me was really the 
ground of suspicion. Had I not seen that, the other circum- 
stance would not have been so strong and the assertion would 
not have been made. And then the third was my own 
memory, as I did not remember the provision of this resolu- 
tion calling for a special meeting of Presbytery in case recon- 
ciliation could be effected. 1 failed to remember that. And 



168 



STENOGRAPHIC REPORT. 



then my great surprise when the notification came to me of 
the special meeting on the 4th of November. 

Dr. GEOKGE : Now J want to say to this Court, brother 
H. W. Keed is my personal friend, and I am using his extracts 
from our Minutes this afternoon when I am reading to you, 
having asked him for them since he came here. I state this 
that you may know that I have no resentment in my heart for 
what he has done to me. I have asked him for his extracts 
that I may use them, and with the same brotherly spirit he 
has given them to me with welcome. I will state another 
fact; brother Reed on his return home after his suspension, 
went down in tive. cars with me, and sitting' in the seat to- 
gether, if I recollect correctly (this is the impression in my 
mind), Brother Reed asked me whether I thought lhat act of 
suspension excluded him from preaching in other churches 
than our own, and I think I said to him. --I don't think It 
does." Can you recall anything about that? 

Rev. H. W. REED : Well, 1 do not remember. 

Dr. GEORGE : I wanted to say that when you were on the 
floor the other dav. 

Rev. H. W. REED : It may be true. 

Dr. GEORGE : I think I said to him that it did not exclude 
him from preaching in other churches, but I had not thought 
about the thing as I came to think about it afterwards, and 
my thought about the contempt came in later. The question 
was raised in Presbytery, and the mind of Presbytery indi- 
cated that they so regarded it, since it seemed to be without 
due regard to the authority of Presbytery. But, as I said, 
Brother Reed had my warrant for that. I want to say another 
thing. Brother Reed is pastor of my old church. He has the 
flock I cared for the first five years of my ministiy. and I have 
had most intimate relations with him and with them. At the 
opening of their new church I was invited to be present, and 
I had the honor to assist my brother in his communion fol- 
lowing that. I want you to understand all the true brotherly 
relations between Mr. Reed and myself. When he made that 
charge against me before this Court that impugned my in- 
tegrity as a minister of Jesus Christ, that I would change the 
records of that Court, after it had adjourned, so as to carry 
my purpose with reference to him, and those associated with 
him. when he did that knowing, as my brother does know T 
how grave an offence that is and what it means to a minister, 
I say to you and to him, I do not believe he had malice in his 
heart : I believe he thought it was true ; I believe he thought it 
was true. And it shows, dear Brethren, how far this awful 
suspicion has driven us. when my brother who has had such 
relations with me. allowed himself to think, on the evidence 
he had. thai that was true. 

Xow I am going to state to you the facts, and I want my 
brother to stay while 1 state them. I am going to vindicate my- 



THURSDAY, JUNE 4. 



self just as far as one can, called up in this way, without the 
evidence in my hand. I recall the circumstances of that re- 
port. As it was Drought in, I believe it recommended that 
there should be a commission appointed, and Brother Sproull 
got the impression, because he was with me on the Commit- 
tee, and he carried it with him until we went to the meeting- 
of the Committee. As the record shows, Dr. McAllister had 
offered a paper, Dr. Sproull had offered a paper, and Dr* 
Willson had offered a paper, none of which Presbytery would 
accept. Three of those men, along with myself, were named 
on that Committee. Presbytery had become distrustful of 
these men whom you are pleased to call its leaders. They 
were afraid to entrust to them this matter, lest they might not 
maintain the integrity of the church as they felt it ought to 
be maintained. You heard what my brother Crozier said 
awhile ago as to his conviction that it should not be intrusted 
to a commission but that Presbytery itself should decide. So 
when the proposition was made to leave it to a commission 
Presbytery took hold of it and passed the motion that it 
should be a committee, and Presbytery itself should deter- 
mine when there had been a true basis for settlement. There 
were a number of contradictory motions one after another, as 
you all. know how it would be; one would suggest one thiDg 
and another another; I had hold of the report, as I was 
chairman of the Committee; 1 would write it in, thinking that 
was about to pass; then there would be some change which I 
would have to write again. So by the time we had finished,, 
that item in our report was quite illegible. It was all inter- 
lined ; and while it was legible enough to me, yet it was dif- 
ficult for the clerk to be sure he could make it out. 

You heard brought out this morning the circumstance that 
Brother Laird left that Presbytery before it was over, going 
east to hold communion. When he was getting away I offer- 
ed him the report, calling his attention to the interlining rK 
and to the difficulty of reading it. He said to me that he 
didn't care to carry the report away with him, and said, k, You 
just retain it. and you can re-write that item so that there will 
be no mistake, and then hand it back to me.' 1 I did retain it. 
I leave it to the Presbytery here to judge whether that was an 
unusual rhing in a church court, that the chairman of a Com- 
mittee, when changes had been made m his report that had 
made it difficult to read, if he should be permitted to retain it 
until he should complete it. and give it in to the clerk in a 
legible form. If Brother Laird said he never had the original 
copy 

Kev. H. W. BEED: He did not say that ; he said he never 
received the original copy. 

Dr. GEOEGE : Bear that in n ind. The clerk said he never 
received the original copy, and if he.were here with this cir- 
cumstance he would lecall what 1 state to you, that it was 



170 



STENOGRAPHIC REPORT. 



offered to him and that I retained it by his request, and be- 
fore he returned home I sent it to his horns, his wife receiv- 
ing it. One circumstance which he alluded to was that item 
six was stricken out. There was no item six to it, and that 
led them to think it was not genuine? Well, of course, when 
I re-wrote it on another paper, the item did not belong to 
the record, and I simply left it out and sent it to him just as it 
passed the Court. There is another circumstance to which 
you allude, that the report of the Committee of Supplies had 
also been manipulated, the "Com." being changed to "Com- 
mittee 1 ' when it should have been '■'Commission.''' the change 
being made with a lead pencil. 

Rev. H. W. REED: That is where the suspicion came in: 
and seeing the syllables inserted it looked to me like an effort 
to remove all doubts as to whether a "commission" or a 
*' committee' ' had been formed. 

Dr. GEORGE : It looked like an effort of some one? 

Rev. H. W. REED : Yes, sir. 

Dr. GEORGE : How did you connect it with me? 

Rev. H. W. REED : I do not remember that I endeavored 
to connect it with you; I don't know who made that change, 
I would not say. 

Dr. GEORGE i Would you impugn some other member of 
the Court with that effort. 

Rev. H. W. REED: Well, somebody made that change 
certainly. 

Dr. GEORGE : Mr. Moderator. I call for the chairman of 
the Committee of Supplies to state the facts with reference to 
that report. These are questions of privilege. 

Mr. KfL PATRICK : Mr. Chairman, I ask if this report of 
the Committee of Supplies is present that it be handed to me. 

The MODERATOR : Is this paper present in the house? 

Rev. D. C. MARTIN": As the clerk of Pittsburgh Presbytery- 
is absent he left these letters in the hands of the assistant 
clerk, and I have here that which is the report of the Com- 
mittee of Supplies. 

A MEMBER : There are a number of us understood that 
assertion was made with reference to the report of the Com- 
mittee of Discipline. Now it seems to be the report of the 
•Committee of Supplies: how is this? 

Rev. H. W. REED : The statement is simply this :— The 
Committee on Discipline requested the Committee on Sup- 
plies to nominate the members of this Judicial Committee, 
and in that recommendation of the Committee on Supplies to 
nominate the Judicial Committee we found this insertion. 

Rev. A. KILPATRICK : This report of the Committee is 
in my handwriting. The words, "Judicial Com.." are writ- 
ten with ink, and "mittee"' is written with a lead pencil. But 
as far as I am able to judge it is my own hand write. And 
more than that, I asked for the liberty of retaining from the 



THURSDAY, JUNE 4. 



171 



clerk this report in order that I might notify the persons who 
received appointments from Presbytery, of their appoint- 
ments, and certify this to the papers and magazines of the 
church for publication. And the envelope in which this re- 
port is, bears my handwriting, mailed in our post office, and 
my impression is, this report never left my hands from the 
time it was adopted until I mailed it to Mr. Laird from the 
Valencia post office. That is all I know about it. 

Dr. GEORGE : .1 would like Brother Reed to state to the 
Court, having heard all this information of the circumstances, 
whether he is satisfied or not with reference to the charge 
which he presented, or if he still feels doubt in his mind. 

Rev. H. W. REED : There is one circumstance that was 
not present before my mind, which Dr. George has brought 
out to-day, and that is, the Committee first recommended a 
commission to be appointed, and then afterwards the Pres- 
bytery changed that to a Committee ; I have no remembrance 
of that being done at the Presbytery. It had all escaped 
my mind, but with these statements of Dr. George in regard 
to those changes and amendments in Presbytery of the report 
of the Committee, I am certainly willing Ao withdraw the 
charge I made, and am satisfied with the report as finally 
adopted and published. 

Dr. GEORGE : You are? 
_ Rev. H. W. R\EED : Yes, sir. And I am sorry for what I 
said under these circumstances. 

Dr. GEORGE : I have but a few things now to say. I be- 
lieve Brother Reed is sorry. I do not believe he is half as 
sorry as he will be. Not because it will change the relations 
between him and me ; we will be friends as we were friends 
before. But I submit to every minister in this Court, and to 
every elder, that he has inflicted upon me a gross and griev- 
ous wrong that he cannot amend ; and through these public 
prints (and these gentlemen of the press will be fair with me 
and they will give my vindicatijn as fully as they can), and 
in this public way he did stand on this platform and made 
charges that caused a profound sensation in the hearts of the 
people, and led some most grievously to impugn my integrity 
until I could hardly meet my friends or ask the hand of a 
friend. ISTow, Brother Reed did that in a suspicion that 
would have been easily removed. You have heard a good 
deal about the duty of brother with brother before he does a 
thing like that, when it is a personal grievance, to go to the 
brother and speak with him. As I have said, Brother Reed 
is my personal friend, and we have been intimate. He was 
led to do this; there was a han4 in it. It was not malice. 

do not believe he acted for himself alone. I believe, this 
conviction grew in the minds of my young brothers; it must 
have, and they thought it was necessary to be brought out, 
and they knew very well what the effect would be upon the 



172 



STENOGRAPHIC REPORT. 



Court with reference to its impression as to Pittsburgh Pres- 
bytery. They knew how it would harmonize with other 
things. And so he took this floor to impugn his own friend, 
a minister of Jesus Christ, in that way,/ Now, what 1 want to 
say is that a cause that has to resort for its defence, or that 
depends upon its ability to impugn ministerial character, to 
carry it through a court of Christ's house, and that will do 
these things — is a cause which a court of Christ's house 
should weigh, and decide what its claim is. 

1 stated to you at the outset that Pittsburgh Presbytery 
stands before this community and before the church as hav- 
ing vindicated the character of the men whom she tried and 
suspended until men said it was barbarous to suspend men 
against whom you have no charge of immorality. And yet 
simply to maintain the integrity of the church she separated 
them from her communion, and she held their characters 
without spot and without stain. And they have sought to 
carry their case in this Court, and they have sought to preju- 
dice the standing of Pittsburgh Presbytery before this Court, 
by impugning my character. I tell you it is too dear to me to 
be sold at that price. I say T have no feeling of anger against 
my brother, but I have a feeling of deep wrong. He has done 
me an injury that he cannot repair, and that 1 cannot repair. 
The Lord will wipe it out. 

I beg your pardon for tresspassing upon your time, but you 
all understand what it means to me, and you are glad that it 
is cleared up I am sure, and that I do not rest under it. What 
did we do in this Judicial Commission, or in this Judicial 
Committee as it was? Now I say again I think these young 
brethren sincerely believed that that was a commission with 
Avhich they were dealing; they have said so, and I do not 
doubt their word at all. The chairman thought so. I think 
I can explain how the difficulty came about. When the re- 
port of the Committee was submitted it recommended a com- 
mission. It was in the closing hours of Presbytery; brethren 
were talking as they will talk, and there was a confusion. 
Members of Presbytery insisted upon making this change, and 
they made it. They said, "-We will decide this question, and 
we will make the change.' 1 And the brethren did not notice 
that the change was made, but it was made by the Presby- 
tery. That Committee met in the morning. We were con- 
stituted with prayer. They did not come until the afternoon. 
We were in se. ft sson but they did not know it. There was 
nothing to indicate to them that it was more than a commit- 
tee. There was nothing to indicate to, them that it was a 
commission, if they had not had that evidence before them. 

The next thing I wish to call }'our attention to is, the plat- 
form we adopted. Now, I submit there was a difficult prob- 
lem to be solved by this Committee. They were seeking a 
reconciliation, and the problem was this : These brethren had 



THURSDAY, JUNE 4. 



173 



made their statements to the Presbytery; the Presbytery re- 
garded them as inconsistent with the standards of our church. 
They regarded the East End Platform as not able to be vin- 
dicated, as not in harmony with our standards. But these 
brethren declared their adherence to it and they could not 
change that. It was a very difficult problem to try to solve 
how these men who adhered to a platform that was not in 
harmony with the church's law, were to be continued as 
ministers. The Committee set about it because they under- 
stood it was the wish of Presbytery that they should do that. 
They decided in the first place that this plank should be the 
foundation: u We disavow the East End Platform as a bond 
of union within the Reformed Presbyterian church and as 
other than an explanation of individual opinion." Now, 
Brethren, you notice that says nothing about an organization. 
It deals with a platform. You had your attention called to 
the fact that we thought there was an organization. But now 
the Judicial Committee talked about it as a platform. How 
did we come to leave out in that basis the disavowing of an 
organization? Why just this way: '-These brethren made 
frank, candid and open statements on the floor of Presbytery, 
of their connection with that Meeting. They explained to us 
that it was a private conference ; that it was not intended to 
be of that character that it had been understood to be ; and 
we accepted that idea of it, that it was simply a meeting for 
an explanation of opinions; and we dealt not with an organi- 
zation but with an opinion, and we said that they should tirst 
of all disavow the East End Platform as a bond of union, be- 
cause they had certainly agreed together. And so we framed 
this plank: "We disavow the East End Platform as a bond 
of union within the Reformed Presbyterian church and as 
other than an explanation of individual opinion/ ' We made 
rip our minds we might submit that first of all. The next 
thing was : "We engage to abide by the existing laws of this 
church as to voting at civil elections and holding office, and 
to carry them out in the exercise of our office." "We engage 
not to propagate contrary views to the above while holding 
the position of ministers of the Reformed Presbyterian 
church." Now, where was Presbytery's compromise in that? 
Well, 1 will tell you. It was simply in permitting men to re- 
main in the ministry as the teachers of our people who had 
declared their belief in a platform which Presbytery regarded 
as inconsistent with our standards. That was a very ques- 
tionable proceeding. But that is what we undertook to do be- 
cause we did not want to separate from the brethren. We 
said, "You can disavow that Platform as anything but your 
private opinion; you can agree to hold the law of the church; 
you can agree not to propagate contrary views while you are 
ministers of this church ; you can agree to these things as 
honest men." We felt that we were letting them go just as 



174 



STENOGRAPHIC REPORT 



far as any one could. We came together and prepared a 
platform. We did not put a thing in it that would seem to be 
a stumbling block, and we left out the one thing which we 
knew they could not grant, and we thought possibly the 
church might be safe in receiving them without that, — that 
is, they could not disavow the opinion they had already ex- 
pressed, and which we thought was unscriptural. I don't 
know whether it was right or wrong. Some of us said we 
would have difficulty about it. But we said that is the last 
that can be done, and we will submit it to Presbytery as the 
basis we can agree upon if it will be accepted by the men. 
And the men came forward and they finally agreed to the 
Minute that has been read. They did not sign, but it was 
mutually agreed that this should be the basis that should be 
submitted as the result of our meeting. And all that has 
been said about the good feeling we had as to having reached 
this point is true. Brethren, we were trying to get together. 
It was an honest seeking after reconciliation, and we were 
doing it as honest men. 

They say when that basis was agreed upon they received 
fraternal salutation, and they were led thereby to think that 
the matter was ended, and that this was a commission. I 
will tell you what occurred. Dr. Sproull was chairman of 
that Committee. After this agreement had been accepted by 
all, Dr. McAllister, who was the Moderator of Presbytery, 
arose and took the right hand of the brother nearest him, and 
one after another; and I expect we said all the pleasant 
things it was stated we did say. We were very glad. Here 
was a door open out of this difficulty. But, Brethren, it was 
not the act of a judicatory, and these brethren ought to have 
known it was not. When we give the sign of official saluta- 
tion to a brother, the Moderator takes his place and gives his 
hand, and the rest follow. Our brother was not the Moder- 
ator. The Moderator came in near the last. They should 
have known that, if it had been a court of Christ's house, the 
man who was not the Moderator would hardly rise to lead off 
in giving fraternal greetings that indicate a reception of that 
kind. I believe it was misunderstood, as they say it was. But 
what I want you to understand is this : It was not deception. 
That is the difference between their meaning and mine. I am 
trying to show you the brethren were honest ; they are trying 
to show you that brethren were dishonest. I admit every- 
thing they claim they understood, but the particular thing I 
insist upon is, we did not intentionally -deceive them, and 
they ought not to have been deceived. They did not hear 
fully; they did not hear the action of Presbytery. It was not 
our fault that they did not understand that matter, and they 
thought it was a commission. We know that it was a com- 
mittee. We had an agreement, and it was this : that in order 
to avoid the agitation of this question before it would come 



THURSDAY, JUNE 4. 



175 



to Presbytery we would not say anything about what we had 
done. We had learned that there is difficulty about talking- 
when the people are agitated. I do not know which side the 
suggestion came from that we would say nothing about this 
agreement until it came before the Court, and would not give 
the people a chance to talk; but that was the agreement. It- 
was not to be given out. I believe the first indication that the 
agreement was not kept w<^ the next morning. I will turn 
here to the papers Of the morning following that meeting and 
read to you some statements thafappeared in them. Here is 
one in the Commercial Gazette* of October 23rd: "Victory for 
the Liberals. The Conservative Eeformed Presbyterian Com- 
mittee find the seventeen not guilty of heresy." And here is 
another: "A truce declared. An amicable settlement the 
result of the R. P. Conference. Xot such a divergence of 
opinion as represented. The minority ministers not censured 
for issuing circulars expressing their views. Will report to 
Presbytery.'* The first one is the more significant, "Victory 
for the Liberals." They did not get that report from the 
Conservatives, for we did not think there was a victory. It- 
began to go out that the church had surrendered and that 
these men'had things their own way. 

A MEMBER : How soon was that report in the paper after 
that meeting? 

Dr. GEORGE : I am not able to answer that question. It 
was very soon. I said a moment ago I thought it was the 
next morning, but I am not positive enough of "that to assert 
it. If you can tell me what the date of our meeting was I 
could tell you. But the matter which I wish to show partic- 
ularly is. what appeared in the November number of our 
Banner, for 1890. On the cover page I read these words r 
••At the late meeting of Pittsburgh Presbytery Prof. D. B. 
Willson preferred a -'Form of Libel" against the ministers- 
under their care who had signed "the Platform.'' charging 
them with -heresy, covenant breaking, violation of ordina- 
tion vows, pursuing divisive courses and insubordination." ' 
Presbytery, having heard the seven ministers so charged >in 
defence of their position, referred the matter to a Judicial 
Committee. This Committee, after vainly endeavoring to get 
a recantation or pledge from the parties, unanimously agreed 
that these young men had been wholly misunderstood, and 
with the right hand of fellowship relieved them from the un- 
just suspicion that had been so industriously circulated 
against them." An -accuser becomes liable to censure if. on 
investigation, it appears that he has acted from malicious 
motives in making his accusation.'" 

That appeard on the cover of the November number of the 
Banner. It was received in Allegheny City on the 7th day of 
November, with that article printed in it. Our Presbytery 
met in special meeting on the 1th day of November: those 



176 



STENOGRAPHIC REPORT. 



words must have been in print before our special meeting 
met, at which time our basis was to be given to the public. 
That record contains statements as to what occurred in this 
Judicial Committee that were not known outside of the Com- 
mittee. It is not a statement that was written by any mem- 
ber on the conservative side. It presents a view of what took 
place there by representatives of the liberal side. It was sent 
to that magazine of the church ^r publication, and was in 
print before the time at which we had agreed to keep faith 
with one another, that there should be nothing given out as 
to the transactions of that meeting; and it was sent there by 
men who have told you over and over again that they believ- 
ed that that matter was finally settled. They have told you 
that they believed that was a commission, and that they were 
not to have a hearing again until the next spring at the regu- 
lar meeting of Presbytery, and yet there is the report that 
was furnished by them to go out to the church, — that the 
conservatives had surrendered the church, and that they 
would re-open their charges, and that they had been grossly 
misrepresented, and the man who had the courage to bring a 
libel before Presbytery against them for following a divisive 
course ought himself to be libeled. I want yon to remember 
that N. R. Johnston was not the editor of the Banner at that 
time. 

Now I show you that it did not require anything that has 
occurred on the floor of this Court to convince some members 
of Pittsburgh Presbytery that there was bad faith in that 
meeting. It did not, sir. There is a representation that was 
intended to go to the church, and that went out in violation 
of the agreement made. I want you to remember that mv 
young brother who stood before you this morning said he re- 
garded the bond into which we entered that day as being as 
solemn as our sworn covenant, and when we grasped his 
hand it was a covenant that we would be as true as if we had 
sworn to it and signed it with our names. I want to know if 
all these brethren felt themselves held in such sacred bonds 
to that church court? And yet they sent out such a report as 
that, when I have read you the basis which was agreed upon, 
and they meant that report to go out into the church and to 
go on for six months before Presbytery would meet to cor- 
rect it. 

My Brethren, these young men have hung their- case upon 
the question of bad faith in that Judicial Committee. They 
have hung it there before the church and belore the world 
for these months; and you can understand that we have some 
feeling on the subject when we say there was bad faith, but it 
was not on our side. 

I went to my prayer meeting from that Committee. My 
people were intensely anxious to know. I said I cannot tell 
you; I hope we have reached a settlement. I spent the time 



THURSDAY, JUNE 4. 



177 



for nearly two weeks before. Presbytery met with my brother- 
in-law, Prof. Coleman, with whom 1 have the closest inti- 
macy, talking with him from day to day about that; and when 
we came on the tloor of Presbytery, Brother Coleman, after 
the report was read, arose and said. **1 did not know until the 
clerk read that report, what the Committee had done." I say 
that to show you how faithfully I had kept my engagement 
not to give that out until it came properly before the Court. 
I am the man who is charged' with this bad faith. That is the 
way the bad faith began. 

I assisted Brother Carlisle at the following communion, and 
we talked over church matters. He was greatly interested in 
this matter. Subsequently I had a letter from him in which 
he said to me: "There have come such reports to the east 
from the meeting of your Committee that the only hope I 
have that you have not surrendered the church is, my faith in 
the men who were in that Committee.'" I had a letter from 
my brother, Mr. Foster, the pastor of the Third church, in 
which he expressed his apprehension that we had surrender- 
ed the church. I do not know whether you can verify the 
authority of these things, but 1 charge that faith was broken 
by the men who represented that they had crushed the Pitts- 
burgh Presbytery, that they had vanquished them, and that 
they ought to be on their knees before them. Yet these men 
stood before you to-day pleading that somebody had broken 
faith and ought to be dealt with. 

Now, Brethren, there was another step. When they came 
into Pittsburgh Presbytery, this treacherous man who had 
shaken hands with them and been so kind and good, did an- 
other awful wicked thing, — he rose in his place when the re- 
port was presented and he presented certain resolutions 
which were regarded as an addition to this basis of settle- 
ment. What were those resolutions? The first was this: 
"That Presbytery expresses its condemnation of the East 
End Meeting, of July 22nd, as having been held without due 
regard to the act of last Synod, and as having by its methods 
and utterances awakened apprehension throughout the 
church. Notice the resolution does not say "organization." 
There is a word changed in that resolution.* As I offered it 
it read, -'Expresses its disapproval of;" I did not say "con- 
demnation/" I said, that is a little too hard a word ; and I took 
it out and put in • > disapproval of the East End Meeting." It 
was written very softly, "without due regard to the act of last 
Synod, and as having by its methods and utterances awakened 
apprehension throughout the church." It was as mild a con- 
demnation as you could make of that meeting. The brethren 
have expressed enough, I think, on the floor to warrant that. 

The second was a condemnation of their Platform and reads 
as follows: "2. That Presbytery condemns the East End 
Platform as containing sentiments that are not in harmony 



178 



STENOGRAPHIC REPORT. 



with the teachings of our subordinate standards or with the 
Scriptures, especially as it opposes the position of practical 
political dissent from immoral constitutions of civil govern- 
ment as a term of communion, which position is fundamental 
to our church." 

Now, why did I do that? I got the floor after the report 
had been read and before any remarks had been made. 1 
knew the feeling that had arisen. Those reports did not take 
long to come back from New York. They were all about us. 
It was said that the church had been surrendered. We came 
into that Presbytery with men wide awake, and everybody 
there; I saw the agitation and difficulty, and I wanted to 
avoid it. I arose and slated, as a member of the Court, not as 
a member of the Committee, — which leads them to say that I 
hid myself in the minute; but I did not hide myself; I simply 
rose and stated, as a member of the Court, I wanted to sup- 
port these resolutions, and asked that they be considered 
along with the report. I did not read them until I had made 
a long preface. They say I spoke ten or fifteen minutes. I 
suppose I did, for I was very anxious. I saw I might stir up 
opposition; that persons might feel, ''Now we do not want 
that done/ 1 I talked as quietly as I could as to the effect of 
them; I analyzed our basis and showed how much we were 
surrendering to them, and that we were doing all we could do 
in allowing them to stay in our church as ministers, while 
holding a position which w r e did not think was Scriptural. I 
showed them how much we were giving up. And then 1 
made a personal appeal to all whom I could influence in the 
Presbytery; I said, "Let us condemn the meeting, let us con- 
demn the Platform, and then accept the men on that basis. ' r 
Why did I do that'? Well, my Brethren, I can name three or 
four men, Dr. H. H. George, Prof. W. J. Coleman and Rev. 
W. R. Laird. — that I remember distinctly, rose in their places 
and said, that before I had presented the resolutions they had 
determined they would not permit the church to be surren- 
dered. I made my personal appeal to all whom I could influ- 
ence. I did what I will never do again; I appealed to the 
consideration they might have for my judgment, that they 
would not put themselves in opposition to the basis, but 
allow it to go through, and satisfj^ themselves with simply 
condemning the Meeting and condemning the Platform, and 
then accepting the basis. 

All the explanation I could make did not remove the sus- 
picion the young men had that I was doing an unfair thing. 
I explained it at great length, that they would not have to 
accept it, that they did not have to give their approval to the 
resolutions at all. Brethren, it has been published over and 
over again that those resolutions were an amendment or an 
addition, or a codicil to the basis ; and it has been called all 
kinds of things, and it has been said that I came in and forced 



THURSDAY, JUNE 4. 



179 



through that Presbytery an addition to our basis of agree- 
ment which these men would have to accept. And I believe 
some of the brethren in the church bave the idea that we 
tried to force the addition to that basis of agreement with 
these men; but it is not true, and it was explained as plainly 
as words could explain it, that it had nothing whatever to do 
with that. They had gone as far as they could; Presbyteiy 
would do the best it could to avoid a trial. 

Now, I want to submit: Was it too much? Our Presbytery 
believed that that Platform was a mistake and contrary to the 
standards of our church. They were making an effort to 
allow men to remain in our ministry who believed in that 
Platform, and they bad a right to say to the people to whom 
that basis had been submitted, "That basis is not according 
to our standards." They had a right to say that to the 
people. They had no right to give them back their pastors 
and say, ''These men are free from anything that is wrong." 
without saying to them, '• We do not approve of that which 
they have uttered." It may be tbeir private opinion ; let them 
hold it as a private opinion. But, my brother, Pittsburgh 
Presbytery had the right to put in the antidote; it was the 
very least she could do She allowed them to protest against 
it. She allowed them to protest on the Minutes against it. It 
was not any part of the agreement. But what followed when 
that was proposed? Why then came the next step; these 
brethren one after another got up and began to say, ''That is 
a rider ; we won't accept that." The} r said, "That report is 
not a true representation; we didn't sign that basis as it 
stands; we signed it with explanations." 

Rev. J. R. J. MILLIGAjST : 1 just want to call your atten- 
tion to this : This morning I was speaking myself on this 
matter and I explained that I was not at that second meeting 
of Presbytery. Will the speaker kindlv keep this in view? 

Dr. GEORGE : 1 will. ■ Rev. J. R. J. Milligan and Rev. A. 
W. McClurkin were not at that meeting. Some of the other 
brethren undertook to speak for them and said Mr. Milligan 
would just fall in with them. It was an unwarranted state- 
ment. They said there were explanations that had not been 
reported. Now think of that in a church court! Our Com- 
mittee had submitted to them a basis which we said was the 
basis agreed to, and these young brethren rise and say, 
"There were verbal explanations that were part of our under- 
standing and which that Committee should have reported to- 
gether with the basis." Is not that what they said ? Now, 
what do you think Presbytery would do after that statement 
was made by the young men? A member who is not with us 
now arose and stated there were reservations, and when mat- 
ters became a little warm he said there were, things occurred 
in that Committee which, if he would state them, would 
startle the people. It sartled the people when he said th::t. 



180 



STENOGRAPHIC REPORT. 



It startled me so much that I saw our Committee was being 
represented as acting dishonestly ; they were representing to 
Presbytery something that was not in this basis, and that we 
did not reach an agreement at all. 

I arose and said I only knew one thing which had occurred 
in the Committee which the brother could refer to as a reser- 
vation, and that one thing was, that he had called attention 
to the fact there was an engagement in that basis that they 
would enforce the law of the church, and he said there was 
an old case in his congregation that had occurred under a 
former pastor, and he wanted to know whether if he signed 
that basis he would have to go home and bring up that old 
case and apply the law of the church ; whether he would be 
bound to do that. And I stated, the Committee had told him 
that it simply bound him to exercise the usual discretion of a 
pastor in dealing with cases of violation of the law. That was 
the only thing that I can remember as being a reservation. 

That brother said on the floor that that was not the case at 
all ; that the case was this : That the man was continuing in 
the violation and the agreement was, that he was not to en- 
force the law in that case because it had grown up years be- 
fore. My brother. Dr. Willson, arose with his eyes, and per- 
haps his mouth, open, and he said, "My brother, we did not 
understand that.' 1 This brother said, tk Why yes, that is just 
what occurred, that was what I said; that it was agreed that 
the law should not be enforced with reference to that old 
case/ 1 Dr. Willson said, -'Well, that means you signed an 
agreement to enforce the law of the church with the under- 
standing you would not enforce the law. We did not under- 
stand it that way. We thought that was an old case.'' Now, 
Brethren, 1 want to know how long it would take young men 
to awaken distrust in the mind of a church court when they 
openly state that they had signed a basis of agreement with 
an understanding of that kind. A solemn agreement that 
they would enforce the law of the church, and then state 
distinctly that it was understood they would not! 

Dr. McALLISTEK : They did not sign an agreement. 

Dr. GEORGE: I say, that explains how Presbytery lost 
faith in that agreement. Now it begins to dawn on your 
minds, I hope, that the breach of faith came from some other 
quarter. 

A MEMBER : To avoid subsequent misunderstanding, I 
think we have understood, the agreement was not signed but 
agreed to. 

Dr. GEORGE : Yes. it was not signed but agreed to. I 
am glad you corrected me in that. It was not signed but it 
was agreed to. I am trying to explain how lhat basis of 
agreement failed. It was dishonored. It was not dishonored 
by our side; it was dishonored by the other side. It was dis- 
honored in the first place by breaking faith in disclosing be- 



THURSDAY, JUNE 4. 



181 



forehand ; in the second place by misrepresenting the facts fh 
the case in the disclosure, and in the third place by their 
declarations on the floor of Presbytery with reference to 
understandings being a part of it. It was all past in very little 
time in Pittsburgh Presbytery. They began to think there 
was double play going on, and it did not take Pittsburgh 
Presbytery long to decide which of those two papers it would 
take first. The. two papers were submitted, and were argued 
and considered together. I put my resolutions in before the 
other was adopted, because I knew the other could not be 
adopted without them without discussion, and I knew discus- 
sion was doomed to kill it. I put them in, asking that they 
be passed before, because 1 felt they ought to pass before: in 
view of the denials that were put forth, that Presbytery, deci- 
ding that these men should remain in the church should 
make this provision for the safety of the church. And T put 
them in because I was persuaded that Presbytery could do 
no less, and these brethren could. not refuse to accept that' 
much. When it was said by them they would not permit us 
to express our opinions on the East End Platform, the Moder- 
ator said, "Why, the East End Meeting did not hesitate to 
express its opinion on the principles of the church, and Pitts- 
burgh Presbytery certainly can pass on tbe East End Plat- 
form." 

(On motion the Court adjourned until to-morrow morning 
at nine o'clock.) 

MORNING SESSION. 

Friday, June 5th, 1891. 

The MODERATOR, after the usual opening exercises, an- 
nounced that the Court was ready to resume the hearing of 
the defence in the appeals and complaints which were before 
the Court at the time of adjournment the previous evening, 
and Dr. R. J. George had the floor. 

Dr. R. J. GEORGE : Mr. Moderator, I have been requested 
to explain the connection between the paper that was yester- 
day in the hands of Rev. A. Kilpatrick, and the report of the m 
Committee on Discipline, and how that correction, made in 
Mr. Kilpatrick's report, affected the charge made against me 
of having changed the record. I wish to make that clear to 
you, both for Brother Reed's sake and for my own sake. The 
Committee on Discipline recommended that the Committee 
on Supplies nominate the members of the Commission to have 
charge of this work. Presbytery changed it to a Committee, 
but they left in the hands of the Committee on Supplies the 
nominating of the members. Mr. Kilpatrick prepared his 
report knowing that it was to be left to them to nominate the 
members, and he had written "Com.'' for Commission I pre- 
sume ; at all events, when the Presbytery decided on a Com- 



182 



STKJSOGRAPHIC KEPORT. 



mittee. Mr. Kilpatrick interlined the closing part of the word 
in his report. — "the members of the Committee." That ap- 
peared in lead pencil as an addition, and the papers being re- 
viewed by our brethren, it occurred to them as a possibility, 
and seems to have assumed the form of probability, if not 
certainty, that I. having decided to make it a Committee and 
not a Commission, not only changed my own report and con- 
formed the other report with it. but also that some one else 
was in collusion with me and made the change in the other 
report,— at least both changes had been made. 

The significance of Mr. Kilpatrick's correction is this. Like 
ni3'self he retained in his hands the report which he nad pre- 
pared in order to carry out the business suggested in it. and 
that report he mailed afterwards to the clerk of the Committee, 
and providentially it came back to his hand by a telegram for 
it 3 r esterday, bearing still the envelope in which he had 
mailed it from his honie to the home of the clerk. So that by 
no possibility could it have been in my hands. That was 
what was brought out. and it satisfied our brethren. I think, 
fully that I had not anj^thing whatever to do with that 
change. 

Xow. I hope the connection between these two things is 
clear to all of you. I hope you see the force of the fact that 
the Committee of Supplies have put into its report that it was 
a committee, and not a commission. I think that that will 
settle in the minds of all of you. that while, as I said, I be- 
lieved the young brethren thought it was a commission, and 
our chairman thought it was a commission, yet the fact was, 
Presbytery made it a committee before she allowed it to go 
out of her hands. Therefore, I think, that every conclusion 
that has been reached in the mind of any of you on the idea 
that there w T as deception as to whether this was a committee 
or a commission, must be dismissed on this clear evidence 
that our Presbytery appointed a committee, and that it was as 
a committee we sat. I am willing that my brethren shall have 
all the benefit they claim from their having been mistaken. I 
think, from henceforth they will not use the word ••deceive,'" 
which the.v have used, in connection with this matter. They 
have said that they have been deceived. They were not de- 
ceived; they were mistaken as to what it was. Some difficulty 
has grown out of the mistake, but the mistake was not mine. 
I had no responsibility for it, nor has the Presbytery any 
responsibility for it. 

The matter under discussion, when we took our recess, was 
the subject of breach of faith with reference to the course of 
the conclusions of this Judicial Committee. I wish to call 
your attention to how very large a degree our brethren have 
rested their case on their ability to prove a breach of faith 
with reference to the transactions of this Committee. I am 
the more anxious to speak of this, because from all the papers 



FRIDAY, JUNE 5. 



183 



that have been presented with reference to this case by those 
from a distance, — hundreds of miles away, — it is evident that 
they have had this impression away from the bounds of Pitts- 
burgh Presbytery; and there has somehow or other come to 
work into the mind of the people that there has been some 
breach of faith. If that were true, it would be right to com- 
plain of injustice and wrong. If that were not true, every 
opinion that has been based upon it must give way. 

I wish to call attention to the points I have made with ref- 
erence to this breach of faith when we separated last evening. 
You will notice that the charge is twofold : a. A breach of 
faith with reference to a member of that Committee offering 
resolutions in the Presbytery that should not have come in 
•connection with this report according to their view. That 
was a breach of faith by an individual while concealing him- 
self under the attitude of a member of the Court, and not as a 
member of the Committee, b. A charge of breach of faith 
by the whole Committee, on the ground, as appears from the 
record, that this whole Committee united in recommending 
unanimously that their report, which they had agreed upon 
with these young man, should be laid aside and the basis of 
agreement adopted by Presbytery should take its place with 
reference to Mr. J. R. J. Milligan. This second point is 
pressed very strongly by our brother J. E. J. Milligan. He 
made his point very clear, and apparently very strong, that 
he had not himself rejected this basis of agreement, and that, 
as a matter of good faith to him, the Committee should not 
have moved that that basis lie on the table and another basis, 
prepared by Presbytery, take its place. Now, [ think I have 
made clear the ground upon w T hich they charge a breach of 
faith by the whole Committee, and I am sure it is clear in 
your mind as to the ground upon which they charge a breach 
of faith upon my own personal part. At the time of adjourn- 
ment I had shown that there was an express agreement, that 
the conclusions of that meeting of the Judicial Committee 
should not be disclosed until the meeting of Presbytery. A 
member asked me this morning to fix the dates between these 
times as far a§, possible, so they would be able to judge of 
what results-might be brought about in that lapse of time; 
of what room there was for changes to be effected. I see at 
once the importance of that to my argument. 

I have not noted, in preparing my notes, in every instance 
the date. T should be glad at any time to have them stated by 
others, and allow the Court to take the time to find them, but 
I will fix them just as far as I can. Now r . fix in your mind 
this: The Judicial Committee met on the 21st day of October, 
1890. and that Judicial Committee called a special meeting of 
Presbytery, to convene on the 4th of November. The point 
that I made was, that in this lap-se of time the breach of faith 
occurred,— the first breach of faith with reference to this 



184 



STENOGRAPHIC REPORT. 



agreement; and that it did not occurr on tb« side of those 
who represented the Presbytery. I wish to call up to your 
mind again the evidence that I presented to show that tnis 
was true. The first matter is, that the next morning after our 
meeting there appeared in the ^ublic press of this city the 
announcement of the triumph of th3 Liberals, in the heading 
of at least one paper. There was reference to it in several 
of them. There were different suggestions, but the idea was, 
that Presbytery's position had been yielded. There were 
other references which indicated that an amicable and peace- 
ful settlement had been reached. I do not think that that 
would be regarded as a breach of faith by any of us. We all 
felt that that was true. But any representations to indicate 
or to anticipate the meaning of our transaction, by saying that 
it was a triumph of one side against another, was wrong, from 
whatever source it came. I do not at this point charge it upon 
any one. 

The second thing is : The communication which I read in 
our Banner for November, 1890. 1 shall not read it again this 
morning, as I do not wish to waste time- unnecessarily, but I 
want to fix in your minds how much depends upon it. That 
Banner was received in this city on the 7th day of November. 
< »ur special meeting of Presbytery wa,s on the 4th day of 
November. But the article, which appears on the cover of 
the Banner, must have been in print before the special meeting- of 
Presbytery. The article undertakes to set forth the results of 
our meeting. It bears the mark of having been written by one 
who was acquainted with what occuried inside the meeting, 
for the reason that it refers to these fraternal salutations that 
passed, and to certain other things that were known only to 
the members of the Committee. It claims a complete triumph 
for the Liberals. It asserts that this vindication was so com- 
plete, that the member who had brought their cases before 
the Presbytery, with reference to two of them, had made 
himself liable to be libelled himself under our Book of Dis- 
cipline, which says that one that has preferred a charge and 
failed to support it. is liable to be dealt with instead of the 
one against whom he has preferred the charge. These are 
the representations made as the result of this meeting. 

The next point which I made in regard to that was this : 
That this account of the meeting and of its results, bearing 
the mark of coming from one of the six (for I wish Brother 
J. K,. J. Milligan to notice that he is still identified with them 
in my discussion), — I say one of the six, because Rev. A. 
McClurkin was not at that meeting; but all the others were at 
it,— one of the six must have been connected with that com- 
munication. I presented this additional fact, — I gave the 
name of two correspondents who had written to me from the 
East, and who had expressed views in exact harmony with 
that presented in this arth le. I think I shall recall the langu- 



FRIDAY, JUNE 5. 



185 



age again. The letter from Eev. J. W. F. Carlisle, with whom 
I had heen talking over church matters, said, that, frcm the 
reports he heard in the east, the only confidence he would 
have that the church's position had not heen surrendered, 
was the confidence he had in the men who composed the 
Judicial Committee. 

Rev. J. W. F. CARLISLE : May I rise to explain? I want 
nobody to understand from what Dr. George has said, that I 
have been writing letters in reference to this trouble. The 
only letter that 1 wrote was a letter to Dr. George in answer 
to a question as to whether or not he could come on to New- 
burg, to hold National Refojm meetings under the Christian 
Endeavor Society. I answered that letter, and in the letter, 
in a small paragraph, I said that there were reports of that 
kind in the East; that I had no faith in them, because I knew 
that there had been a strong Committee appointed by the 
Presbytery that would see to it that the principles of the 
church were maintained. Dr. George is right, but I do not 
wish to be understood as having any hand in this trouble at 
all. I have written no letter except just a casual paragraph. 
It was merely hearsay on my part.' I had received no letter, 
and had nothing except mere hearsay. 

Dr. R. J. GEORGE : I meant this morning to call upon* 
these brothers, because, as I said, my veracity is attacked. I 
have been put on the defensive. 1 stand simply on the de- 
fensive. I am defending my Presbytery, but it has been 
made to hang about myself, and of course I am defending 
myself. And 1 understand that I am not to assume, after 
what has been said about my trustworthiness, that you are to 
rely upon my unsupported statements. I meant to call upon 
Brother Carlisle. I had not asked him about consulting 
them. I want Brother Foster now to say whether he had 
written to me. 

Rev. F. M. FOSTER: I would say that I wrote to Dr. 
George, and I feel sure 1 put the language even stronger than 
he recited it. 

Rev. J. S. T. M1LLIGAN: Did Brother Foster receive 
any communication irom any of these six in regard to this 
matter? 

Rev. F. M. FOSTER: Not from the six. 

Rev. J. R. THOMPSON: Did Brother Foster receive his- 
knowledge from the newspapers? [know that is the way it 
came to Newburg and Mr. Carlisle got it. It was published 
in the newsj apers. 

Rev. F. M. FOSTER : That is all I know. 

Mr. D. TORRENS : I hope there will be no interruption 
of the speaker. He is going on to present the clear facts as 
he understands them, and I for one want to get them. 

Rev. H. W. REED- I would like to know the date of 
these letters, written by Mr. Carlisle and Mr. Foster. 



180 



STENOGRAPHIC REPORT. 



Dr. GEORGE : I would have to say that I am not sure. I 
may have the letters in my possession, hut I have them not 
here. I have stated the nature of them. 

Rev. H. W. REED: Were they received hefore or after 
the 4th of November? 

Dr. GEORGE : My conviction is, they were received be- 
fore. You will understand the connection of this. That the 
information had gone out, had been widely circulated and 
had awakened apprehensions that Pittsburgh Presbytery had 
not sustained the church as it should. That this result (I do 
not care to lay it anywhere else more strongly than I have, 
but I submit to you the measure of evidence I have) could 
not have come from the Conservatives; that it was of the 
kind that seems to indicate that it came from our brethren 
from the other side, and that it was a disregard of our agree- 
ment to keep these matters to ourselves until Presbytery had 
acted upon them. 

The next point I made in connection with it was. tbat these 
views, being given out, were given out with the understand- 
ing in the minds of these brethren, that the Presbytery was 
not to meet until next spring, — I mean the spring following 
that meeting. They regarded the case as having been settled. 
They went away, feeling there was to be no more of it, and 
that this basis of agreement was not to go before the church 
until the meeting in April. 

Now, to the character of these reports, I think, you are to 
trace the first difficulty with reference to the adoption of the 
basis of agreement which the Committee had decided upon. 
They were so widely spread, and they were so strongly pre- 
sented on that side, that they had simply this effect: to bring 
Pittsburgh Presbytery to a special meeting with a remarkably 
full attendance, and with a very fixed purpose. I hope it be- 
gins to dawn on the mind of Synod, that, although Pittsburgh 
Presbytery may have men who are called "leaders," she has 
not got any man. or one-half dozen men, who can control her 
action. I think it has dawned upon your minds that there is 
no combination among leaders, if there be such, in this Pres- 
bytery, because since our coming together, and with these 
delicate cases before us, in which it would have been sup- 
posed we would act together, we are found antagonizing each 
other on this floor, holding different views and daring to as- 
sert them independently. Now we are just so in Pittsburgh 
Presbytery. We all think we are leaders, or that seems to be 
the view. And so, although it may seem to you that a com- 
mittee, consisting- of the Moderator, of Dr. Sproull, of Dr. 
Willson and of the leaders who are represented in that Com- 
mittee, could go into Pittsburgh Presbytery and guide its 
. action, if they were determined to do it; when you reflect on 
the names that I mentioned yesterday, of men, one of whom 
is taller than any of us; another of whom is heavier than any 



FRIDAY, JUNE 5. 



187 



of us ; any of whom are as strong as any of us in appealing on 
the floor of Presbytery. — who were there, determined to see 
that if this Committee had surrendered the church, as pub- 
lished report said it had, that its basis should not go through 
until the church had been vindicated. 1 would like to have 
men understand that there was a reason why any one who 
•desired to carry that report through, should hesitate, or 
should feel called upon to seek to avoid a collision with the 
Presbytery, in the consciousness that you could not carry 
anything in this Presbytery that did not maintain the rights 
.and Covenant of our church. 

Now dismiss from your minds the idea that this Committee 
could assume to put its basis through. It could not do so. 
Not only could it not, but there was no possibility of it unless 
it could be made acceptable generally to those who were 
determined to be loyal to the church. I was in a position to 
-come to a knowledge of that fact. As I said yesterday, my 
brother, Prof. Coleman, was in interview with me frequently, 
and he had heard these representations. He was one of the 
men who said this Church must stand true to her principles, 
although he said generous things about the brethren. He 
was profound in his conviction, and he was anxious about 
these reports. I can call Prof. Coleman to the floor, if it is 
necessary, to say in the presence of this Court, that he did 
not know from me, until that report was read on the floor of 
Presbytery, what we had decided to do. He is my brother- 
in-law. and he did not know from me. I said, we shall keep 
the faith with regard to keeping this thing quiet until it 
•comes to Presbytery. But I did know from Prof. Coleman, 
and I knew from the other sources to which I have referred, 
that the matter was not settled, and that it would be a delicate 
thing to deal with our basis of agreement. I had submitted to 
you yesterday, an analysis of that agreement, showing what it 
had left out, — that it made provision that these men should 
be retained in the church, and in her ministry, while they 
^continued to hold a view, which they had publicly declared 
in their Platform, and that we regarded as inconsistent with 
our standards and with the Scriptures. 

It was a wonderful undertaking to say that the Church was 
going to determine that that could be done; and it was not a 
certainty she could be defended on the floor of Presbj^tery in 
so doing. But, Brethren. I was anxious about that myself. 
As I stated before in Court, I was very anxious about under- 
taking a thing like that. I was looking, dear friends, to what 
has followed, and we were counting the cost. We knevv what 
it meant to our Church to join this issue. I said on the floor 
of Presbytery, if young men were asking licensure on this 
basis, it could not be granted to them; but I said, here are 
these men, pastors of congregations ; tender ties are holding 
some of them ; they are young men, and they are inquiring, 



188 



STENOGRAPHIC REPORT. 



and they may change their views ; if we can only save the 
Church and save them at the same time. I brought myself to 
the point of doing what I said yesterday, — of taking the floor 
when the basis was read, and asking the liberty of presenting 
resolutions, prefacing them with a few remarks. Others 
thought, and have said, I talked away a good while. I was 
trying to impress upon the minds of all parties, the gravity of 

he situation. I did try to impress our young brethren with. 

he gravity of the situation, and I did try to impress Pres- 
bytery in the same way. I made an appeal personally that 
that basis be allowed to go through if possible I submit to 
you, Fathers and Brethren, in what sense that could be a- 
breach of faith on my part. 

I wish to meet a question here, which I have been asked by 
members of the Court : Why not have held back these resolu- 
tions until Presbytery had acted upon the report of the 
Judicial Committee and it had gone through? Why not have 
held them back? I submit there were two reasons for it. The 
first reason I have already presented to you, and that is, that 
it could not go through without the resolutions. 1 had 
weighed the matter before Presbytery, and I knew a little 
about it, and I said to myself : There is only one possible thing 
that will carry that Platform through the Presbytery, and 
that is, that the Presbvtery itself shall condemn the Meeting, 
and condemn the Platform ; that may possibly carry it,, 
because it gives an opportunity to express their sense of dis- 
approval of what was wrong, and what, I think, we all per- 
haps now agree was at least unwise and perhaps wrong, — the 
holding of the East End Meeting; and then it gave the op- 
portunity, in addition to that, of expressing disapprobation of 
the Platform in the sense in which it was perilous to our 
congregations, so that they should not be restored to their 
congregations without the Presbytery giving that protection 
to its people to which they were entitled; and that this Plat- 
form does not meet the approval of the Court, and especially 
as it had gone out that it was not condemned. 

I want to make very clear to your minds that the other 
reason was, that it would have seemed a breach of faith to 
have introduced these resolutions after the basis of agreement 
had been accepted by the' Presbytery. If they were to come 
in at all, without any one questioning their right to come in t 
they must be presented by any candid man before the Pres- 
bytery had adopted the basis with which they were related. 
I would like to know, if men assert so strongly that it was a 
breach of faith for me, as a member of the Court, to submit 
these resolutions befoi-e Presbytery had accepted the basis at 
all, or either party' were bound by it, whether it would have 
been a breach of faith, if after Presbytery had accepted it, 
and the whole matter had been settled, I had then risen and 
said: "We will condemn the East End Meeting and the East 



FRIDAY, JUNE 5. 



189 



End Platform.'"' Now if any man among you feels that I 
introduced those resolutions at the wrong time I want you to 
hear that in mind. I did not try to spring that trap on any one. 
I had my reasons for introducing thein. 1 gave them frankly, 
and I commend them to your judgment, — tnat if they were to 
be introduced, if they were to be presented to Presbytery, that 
the}' were to be introduced and considered before — but not as 
part of the basis offered to these men and agreed to by them. 

1 think 1 gave you some account yesterday of what followed 
the presentation of these resolutions. I want to make very 
clear to your minds that the resolutions were not presented 
as any part of the basis of agreement I stated that yester- 
day, but I mean that it shall be clearly fixed in your mind. 
The time that I spent (fifteen or twenty minutes, some one 
said; I don't know how long it was), was partly in making 
clear the distinction between these two. That was the 
reason why I insisted that I offered them as a member of the 
Court. 

How could I, as a member of the Committee, offer an ad- 
dition to this basis as connected with the report? Well. I 
suppose I could too. in an orderly way, but not as any part of 
that report. They were not presented as an addition, but as 
an action to be taken by the Court, and to which these breth- 
ren were not asked to give assent. I insist upon you giving 
weight to that, because it has been published over and over 
again, after the facts have been laid before the church, — and 
if I mistake not, laid before the church by the clerk of Pres- 
bytery officially, — that this was true. Men have still continued 
to insist that, in some way, it was made part of the agree- 
ment, to wiiich these men had assented, and men have based 
an elaborate argument or appeal upon it. They have told 
3'ou how grievous it was to ask them to condemn the Meeting 
and condemn the Platform which they had declared they be- 
lieved. Why, of course, it would be absurd; but no such 
thing was ever done. It was not a question as to wether they 
should condemn it. It was a question as to whether they 
would permit Presbytery to condemn it. I want you tc re- 
member that Brother E. M. Milligan put himself, if I under- 
stood him, exactly on that ground. That is, he understood 
that the assent to the agreement was a truce in which we had 
decided, — that is the word he used, — it was a truce between 
antagonistic parties, in which we had decided that there 
should be no discussion of this question until the following 
spring. His idea is, that they had agreed thejr would not 
propagate their views against the standards of the church. 
And according to his view, we had agreed that we would not 
propagate our views in support of what we believed to be the 
Scriptural doctrines of the church as relating to the East End 
Platform. That is, they had gained this : They had met and 
put before our church a Platform, containing principles as- 



190 



STENOGRAPHIC REPORT 



sailing the fundamental doctrines of this church, as our Pres- 
bytery believed, and as they did not believe. And then, when 
we were trying to save the church, they had brought us into 
an agreement, and we had brought them into an agreement,, 
in which, while their Platform was before the church, circu- 
lated widely and being read, we would not discuss that Plat- 
form or condemn it. 

Now, Brethren, I submit to you that they must have had 
some reason to think that they had outwitted the leaders of 
Pittsburgh Presbytery. Think of it! They had taken us into 
a bond by which we could not, without breach of faith, ex- 
press our views in regard to the East End Platform! We were 
to have a Covenanter church, whose fundamental principle 
of practical political dissent from an immoral constitution of 
civi'l government was to be held in abeyance by her ministers 
on both sides for six months, and not discussed. We did not 
make any agreement of that kind ; and because we did not 
make any agreement of that kind, we did not break faith with 
any one in Pittsburgh Presbytery when Pittsburgh Presbytery 
proceeded to condemn the East End Platform, as it did. 
These young brethren protested against the action of Presby- 
tery, and they were allowed to put their protest on our 
record; and after they were allowed to do that they withdrew 
their assent to the basis of agreement on the ground of so 
and so. « 

I wish to pass on now and present to your minds how this 
platform continued to be discredited before the Presbytery. 
I related on yesterday that a brother member said they signed 
it with explanations and reservations, and that those were to 
be construed as a part of the agreement. Dr. McAllister sug- 
gests that I distinguish between ''platform" and "basis." I 
am speaking now of the basis of agreement, submitted by the 
Judicial Committee. 1 say that these young brethren dis- 
credited it before Presbj^tery by their own act. These breth- 
ren declared that they did not accept the basis as it was sub- 
mitted to Presbytery, but with certain explanations given by 
the Committee verbally, which became a part of the agree- 
ment and understanding upon which they signed it, an& 
which must be considered as equally binding with the agree- 
ment, and that there were certain reservations. 

I was at the point when we closed yesterday of giving you 
a sample of these reservations. It was given' by a brother who 
is not before the Court, having withdrawn. I need not repeat 
this morning the understanding with reference to his view of 
the obligation that they would maintain and enforce the law 
of the church. He explained that he understood it to mean, 
and his understanding with us was, that while there was a 
case of a breach of the law in his congregation at the present 
time, it was understood that he was not to go home and put 
the law in force in that case. We understood from what he 



FRIDAY, JUNE 5. 



191 



said that there was an old case of that kind, of past years, and 
that we did not say to him ihat he should lake up an old case 
of discipline. But we had no thought that we were entering 
into a basis of agreement binding them to the enforcement of 
the law of the church with the understanding that in the very 
first instance it was to be broken. But the brother said, that 
was his understanding. And so this morning again, you can 
understand how that basis of agreement was discredited. 
But he remarked, when he saw we were surprised at that r 
that he could present something more startling. Perhaps he 
made the remark in regard to a startling presentation before 
that was brought out. He said he had something however 
more startling to present. When I said I supposed he referred 
to that, he said, No; he referred to something different, that 
he had asked one member of the Judicial Committee to retire 
with him, and that he had informed that member that there 
was an organization ; that he had informed him that there 
was an organization. 

There are a number of things connected with that which I 
shall leave for my brother to present ; but I have felt it neces- 
sary to bring out this much for my purpose this morning. 
This young man stated on the floor of Presbytery that he had 
difficulty about signing the basis which we had presented, on 
account of it containing a disavowal of the East End Plat- 
form as a bond of union within the Reformed Presbyterian 
church, because he understood himself to be a member of an 
organization of that kind, and he was too conscientious to 
give his signature to it. My brother Dr. Sproull will remem- 
ber that we were sitting as he and Prof. Willson are sitting* 
this morning. He turned to me and said. --Why, we didn't 
know there was an organization; that invalidates our basis, 
because we understood that item to mean that there was no 
organization." But here it was brought out by the one who 
was Secretary of the meeting that he understood there was an 
organization, and such an organization as made it impossible 
for him to sign in that way. Now, I rose, as the Rev. O. B. 
Milligan said,-- I do not know whether he is here this morn- 
ing or not. 

Rev. O. B. MILLIGAN: Yes, I am here. 

Dr. GEORGE : I think it was at that point 1 arose and said 
that we did not know there w r as an organization. And Brother 
Milligan, going back to the records, found that in a memorial 
written several weeks before that I said, -'They have formed 
an organization/' He brought those -two things together be- 
fore your minds, as you will distinctly remember. He said, 
"Here is a man who has said and written with his own hand 
that there was an organization, and now he arose on the floor 
of Presbytery, weeks after, and he states with his own lips 
that he did not know until that time that there was an organi- 
zation. My friends, if Brother Milligan was lost in the 



192 



STENOGRAPHIC REPORT. 



mystery of this until, as he said, it was more profound than 
that profoundest of all mysteries of our holy religion, the in- 
carnation, — great, he said, is the mystery of godliness. 

Rev. O. B. MILLIGAN : I wish to correct the gentlemen at 
this point. It was not in connection with that at all that I 
used that expression. 

Dr. GEORGE : 1 shall not argue it, but you used that ex- 
pression? 

Rev. O. B. MILLIGAN : I used that expression. 

Dr. McALLISTER: I think we should insist on knowing 
in what connection he did use it. 

Rev. O. B. MILLIGAN: In connection with the fact that 
you agreed to a basis of settlement and afterwards brought in 
as a member of that Committee additional resolutions which, 
to my mind, broke the bond thit united us.' 

Dr. GEORGE : You used the language however. 

Rev. O. B. MILLIGAjST : Yes, sir. 

Dr. GEORGE : With reference to my breach of faith? 

Rev. O. B. MILILGAN: Yes, sir. 

Dr. GE )RGE : 1 am not much out of the way then? 

Rev. O. B. MILLIGAN: You are a great deal out of the 
way. 

Dr. GEORGE : JSTow, I want to say that my brother, when 
he used this language, was speaking with intense heat: that 
he stated to us when he began that he was unprepared and 
was not speaking from manuscript, but was under the impulse 
of the moment. But I am sure it must have fallen strangely 
on your ears, Brethren, that he brought into such a con- 
nection as this an illustration so solemn as that of the coming 
of the Son of God into our humanity. It was very forcible. 
But, dear friends, members of this Court have said to me, it 
■was blasphemy . 

I do not believe our brother thought of such a thing or 
would, but I want him, when he is on the floor, to say that he 
did not mean to be profane. I want him to do that for his 
own sake, not for mine. I was compelled on yesterday to 
clear up the charge, that I had mutilated the Minutes of the 
Court after the Court had adjourned, in order to carry my 
point. I was charged most distinctly with this offence. 

Now, you will understand, dear Brethren, that this is the 
second charge preferred against me, — that I had falsified, in 
that I had stated that to be true at one point as known to me, 
and at another time said that I did not know it. I brought 
forward on yesterday the ground upon which the first state- 
ment was written. It was threefold: 1. The announcement 
made in the Commercial Gazette^ the authorities for which, as 
given, were Revs. O. B. Milligan and H. W. Temple, that an 
organization was formed. 2. The second was the statement 
by Prof. J. K McClurkin, about one month after that time, 
stating that a society was formed and had adopted its Plat- 



FRIDAY, JUNE 5. 



193 



form, and spread it broadcast. 3. The third was the Platform 
itself, which asserted that. We, the undersigned, do agree to- 
gether for the maintenance of certain principles; which was 
a statement that any reasonable person would suppose meant 
that there was an enrollment, an association, a platform, and 
an object to be sought. It would be understood by any 
reasonable man as meaning there was an association. That 
was the official document put out by these intelligent breth- 
ren as an explanation of their own opinions, according to 
their own words. 

Now, I say to you, as a candid man, reading the words of 
candid men candidly, I thought they meant to say they had 
organized. And so, having the corroboration of Prof. 
jVlcClurkin and of the Gazette, whatever weight it carries, tha-t 
they had organized, I wrote a memorial in which I said, 
"They have formed an organization/' I submit that I had 
sufficient evidence upon which to say that, as we usually ac- 
cept testimony. I have suggested to you this morning the 
ground upon which I came to the conclusion that I did not 
know that they had an organization. 

These brethren had been before our Presbytery and made 
their frank and candid statements; and as far as I recollect, 
none of them admitted in those candid statements that they 
had an organization. It would have been a most important 
part of the case. We are charged here with having sought 
the evidence in this way, and with having obtained it in this 
way. T call attention to the fact that that same brother, who, 
when the Judicial Committee met, said that he could not sign 
that basis because they had an organization, did not say on 
the floor of Presbytery, in his candid statement, that they had 
formed an organization. I think he was justified in with- 
holding it if he did not intend to tell all the truth, because he 
is the same brother who said that he thought we were looking- 
for evidence to convict them. Now, I think that thought was 
in his mind, and I don't accuse him of having held back any- 
thing he was bound to state. He was not bound to state it; 
it was purely voluntary, and he went just as far as he thought 
it wise to go, and he didn't go that far. 

But he was not able to sign this basis of agreement without 
setting himself right on that subject of organization. The 
basis "of agreement, however, was signed— not signed, I am 
using that word again mistakenly. It was agreed to, and we 
agreed to report it as such, as agreed to by all the ministers 
who were present. In it was contained that statement, that 
they disavowed the East End Platform as a bond of union 
among themselves within the Reformed Presbyterian church. 
Now I, as a candid man, dealing with men who, I thought, 
were dealing candidly with me, thought these men had said, 
in signing that agreement, that they did not understand that 
they had an organization. 



194 



STENOGRAPHIC EE PORT. 



I also want to fix in your mind that I am not bringing out 
all with reference to the man who admitted there was an or- 
ganization. My brother, Dr. McAllister, will bring out the 
other facts, and you are to hold them in reserve until you hear 
his statement. What is necessary to my case is, that theRev^ 
H. W. Temple, who was Secretary of the Meeting, and who 
had been publicly announced as its Secretary, on the floor of 
Pittsburgh Presbytery said the}' had an organization. Xow r 
you see I had at one time stated, they had an organization. I 
have given the evidence on which 1 rested that statement. I 
also said, '*I did not know they had an organization.*' I have 
given you the reason why I did not know. It was because I 
thought we had the full facts before us in regard to that 
Meeting, and I thought a candid understanding of that first 
item would lead me to believe they did not have an organi- 
zation. I was thoroughly willing to believe that, and very 
glad too. I was relieved. , said, "I did not know,'' Then y 
w T hen this brother stated, as Secretary of the Meeting, that 
they did have an organization, I thought again I did know it. 
Now, I want to find out how much falsehood I told. My 
Brethren, I do not know which of my statements is true. 
You can judge of that as well as I can. 

What I want you to mark is this : That there was a false- 
hood somewhere — somewhere! They either had an organi- 
zation, or they did not have an organization. My information 
came from the same side of the house all along, that they had 
one in the first place ; that they did not have one in the second 
place, and that they did have one in the third place. My sin 
before you. Brethren, is not that I told a lie, but that I 
believed one* and that a sincere and trusting man may some- 
times do that, I submit. 

I have been arraigned here as having falsified, and these 
are the specifications given to prove that I did. My brother 
has made it just as bitter as he could, and I sat at that table 
and I listened to it, and he looked into my eye and I looked 
into his eye. and neither one of us quailed, as far as 1 could 
see. But he was charging me with having stated a falsehood, 
and he was giving you the specific items upon which to make 
up your judgment. I do not know how many of you thought 
I lied, but I believe, a good many of you thought I did not 
intentionally do so. It was charged with very great heat, and it 
made very great sensation, and I felt a very great sensation in 
my heart. 

Now, Brethren, I want to submit a case. I do not know 
whether the pastor of the Brooklvn church is here or not. 

Rev. J. F. CARSON : Yes, sir," he is here. 

Dr. GEORGE : On the floor of our Presbytery came a tele- 
gram, I think in the form of an affidavit, made by the Brook- 
lyn pastor, affixing his oath, as I understand, to the statement 
that there was no organization formed at the East End. A 



FRIDAY, JUNE 5. 



195 



few moments after it was read, the pastor of Parnassus con- 
gregation, very well acquainted with all the circumstances, 
and an intimate friend of the Secretary, stated on the floor of 
Presbytery that the official Minutes of the East End Meeting 
would show that there was a permanent organization. 1 be- 
lieve he used the word ''permanent;" at least "an organiza- 
tion." I do not overstate it. 

Dr. McALLISTEK : He used the word "permanent." 

Eev. E. M. MILLIGAN : Allow me a word. 

Dr. GEORGE : Wait until I get through and then you can 
have a word. Those two things occurred within a few 
moments in our Presbytery, and I can say to you frankly, 
that it was not in my heart to say that either my brother Car- 
son or my brother E. M. Milligan lied. 

Rev. E. M. MILLIGAN: 1 wish to say 

Dr. GEORGE : Just wait until I get through. It was not 
in my heart to say such a thing. Here are two men who 
were at a meeting, and they looked at the same things, per- 
chance; but they are ministers of Christ, and I have no 
knowledge in all my life that either one of them told a lie. I 
said, "there is a mistake, there is a mistake." And I would 
not for anything in this world have put myself before the 
community as believing that that oath, and that word (that I 
would have taken just as readily as the oath) meant that one 
or the other-of those gentlemen was untrustworthy. That is 
my esteem of ministerial character, and that is my conviction 
of what is due to brotherly love, of which we have heard a 
good deal. And so I say this morning as I said yesterday in 
my own defence, that, when my character is thus impugned 
by men who are here asking you to vindicate them from in- 
justice and wrong done by me, that you shall take notice of 
how I have been treated by these same brethren. You would 
not have done it? Oh, 1 think it is too bad ! It is too bad that 1 
have to follow a line like this! But I must, and you will have 
to just wait and listen to me. I insist that men cannot come 
before this Court and make such appeals ab have been made 
to you about the injustice that has been done to them, and 
the cruelty and wrong. They cannot stand before this com- 
munity and proclaim the high-handed, tyrannical and crush- 
ing power of Pittsburgh Presbytery, and undertake to vindi- 
cate themselves along a line like this. If I seem to be earnest 
I want you to put yourselves in my place, and stand here be- 
fore this audience and before this Court. Another thing, my 
brother E. M. Milligan stood over me with uplifted hand. I 
wrote away ; 1 was not writing very carefully, either, but I 
did not care to make known the fact. 
. Rev. E. M. MILLIGAN : I did not threaten you. 

Dr. GEORGE : No. You stood over me and charged, that 
the man, who had framed the call for the Elders' Convention, 
needed to keep in mind, or should have a more present sense 



196 



STENOGRAPHIC HE PORT. 



(I cannot give his exact words), that we are told in Scripture 
that no liar shall enter the kingdom of heaven ; or the other 
passage perhaps that all liars shall have their part in the lake 
that burnetii with fire and brimstone. My brother, Mr. Sam- 
son, did not use such words with reference to me, I think but 
he expressed, I believe, just as strongly his belief that I had 
broken faith. Xow, Brethren. I do not know what other 
arguments they have presented than these I have gone over. 
I have taken up the specific facts with reference to having 
lied about the organization. I think I have vindicated myself 
on that, and I am willing to leave to you, whether a man who 
feels it his duty to defend our church from an assault of this 
kind has got to defend himself in this Court from assaults 
such as have been made on me in the name of injustice and 
wrong. Mr. Carson wished a moment ago to make a state- 
ment. 

Rev. J. F. CARSON : All I wanted to say was simply this : 
I sent no telegram to Pittsburgh Presbytery : I went before a 
Notary in the city of Brooklyn and took my oath, and if I am 
a perjurer I want this Synod to bring its evidence. I think, 
my veracity is as good as that of any man on the floor of 
Synod, or of the speaker himself; I took my oath, and I will 
take it again, that in my opinion and in my knowledge there 
was no organization formed in the East End conference; that 
it was not from beginning to end a permanent organization. 
That was the oath I took with uplifted hand, before God. and 
I will repeat it again before my Saviour, and before the Synod 
of the Reformed'Presbyterian church. 

Rev. E. M. MILLIGAX : Allow me in that same connection 
to make a statement, which 1 think is due to Mr. Carson, and 
to myself also, and which, I think, will clear Mr. Carson of 
the imputed crime of perjury. 

Dr. GEORGE : I imputed nothing. I simply illustrated, 
and I appeal to the Court. 

Rev. E. M. MILLIGAN : The impression at least 

Dr. GEORGE : I insist, no man should state his impression. 
I simply illustrated, how things might seem to be contradic- 
tory, and both men intend to be truthful. I want you to bear 
that in mind. I said, I did not believe either man was telling 
a falsehood. 

Rev. J. F. CARSON : Did I not understand you to say that 
one or the other lied. 

Dr. GEORGE : What I said was, that I did not believe 
either man intentionally lied; but I said that both statements 
cannot be true. Don't you know I said that? 

Rev. F. CARSON: No. (Laughter.) It is a mighty easy 
thing for some members of this Synod to sit and laugh when, 
a man's oath is in dispute, but the laugh may come in on the 
other side. I want to tell you, men of the Reformed Presby- 
terian church, that some of us have characters as well as you, 



FRIDAY, JUNE 5. 



197 



and that we propose to maintain them and will not permit 
any insinuations by anybody. 

Mr. TORRENS: I have objected once, and I again most 
emphatically and solemnly object to these interruptions. 

The MODERATOR : The speaker permitted it. 

Mr. TORRENS : These brethren will have an opportunity 
to respond when their time comes, and can say what they 
please. But this is doing an injustice to members of this 
Court who want to" get the facts directly from the speaker, 
and cannot be side tracked in this way by such a line of inter- 
ruptions. 

Dr. GEORGE : I do not understand the objection to be to- 
my line of remark. 
Mr. TORREXS : Not at all. 

Dr. GEORGE: I am glad to see that our brethren are so 
jealous of their characters. When the time comes that they 
feel called upon, to vindicate their characters, I will be at 
their side. 1 agree with Brother Carson,— it is easy for some 
people to laugh. I shall now leave this line. I wish to bring 
to your minds that I have explained the reasons which led me 
to present those resolutions at the time I did. and the effect 
that followed their adoption, and how the assent that had 
"been given to that basis of agreement was withdrawn by these 
brethren, and that it was thus cast out of the way. As soon 
as these statements were made by Mr. Temple, and by others 
of the brethren, as to how they had signed, and especially 
when it was brought out that there was an organization 

Mr. DOUTHETT : I have become confused, it may be my 
own fault, but I believe I have a right, as a member of the 
Court that must decide this case, to ask a question right here. 
I have become confused as to that word "signed; 11 sometimes 
he says they did not sign, and others that they did. Both 
may be correct. 

Dr. GEORGE : I am going to try to state the fact, and I 
want you all to keep the fact in your mind, as I stated, and if 
I don't keep.it in mind, remember it is a slip of the tongue. 
These brethren did not sign the basis of agreement. I think 
they stated themselves they had a reason why they were not 
willing to sign a document which they were willing to give 
their assent to. They did give their full consent to it as a 
basis of agreement, and their names were so recorded, though 
not by their signatures, but recorded by the clerk, as assent- 
ing to it. It never was signed, so far as I recollect, in any 
other way than that. Presbytery became somewhat heated 
and agitated by this discussion with reference to the work of 
the Judicial Committee, and they seemed at once to get into 
a resolute frame of mind. A motion was made by a member 
that the basis of that Committee be laid on the table. It went 
on the table. A motion was made that we proceed to adopt 
the resolutions. They proceeded. 



198 



STENOGRAPHIC REPORT. 



The first resolution was a resolution, as I told you yester- 
day, ''That we disapprove of the East End Meeting as having 
been held without due respect to the authority of Synod. " A 
member said, "Now that it has come out that there was an 
organization, that word 'disapprove' isn't strong enough; I 
move we amend it to say 'condemn.' " It went in "condemn 
the East End Meeting.'' Then they passed a resolution, con- 
demning the East End Platform as being contrary to the 
Scriptures and to our subordinate standards. I do not take 
the time to read these, as I think they are familiar to you. 
Those two resolutions were passed by the Presbytery, and 
when they were passed, Revs. E. M. Milligan, H. W. Reed, 
O. B. Milligan and W. L. C. Sampson withdrew their assent. 
These are the brethren who have been before you. Now, I 
want to call your attention just at this point to a state- 
ment, made by Rev. J. R. J. Milligan yesterday when charg- 
ing the Committee as a whole with having gone back on the 
agreement and broken faith. His statement was this : That 
there were no facts before the Presbytery that were not before 
the Committee. I think I have made clear to you that it was 
not before the Committee as a committee that they had a 
permanent organization. That the fact was before the Pres- 
bytery, that they had, as far as the statement of the call of 
the Meeting could be believed, and the Presbytery did not 
question at all when Mr. Temple made the statement that 
they had a permanent organization, but what that was true. 
They thought he knew, and that his statement was correct. 

A DELEGATE : You used the word "call of the meeting;" 
what call? The call of what meeting? 

Dr. GEoRGE : The call of the East End Meeting. This 
was stated by Rev. H. W. Temple, who was Secretary of the 
East End Meeting. I wonder if I am not making myself 
clear. Rev. H. W. Temple, the Secretary of the East End 
Meeting, stated on the floor of Presbytery that they had a 
permanent organization formed at the East End. That fact 
the Judicial Committee did not know, that they had a per- 
manent organization ; and when they signed the agreement, 
we did not believe they had, because they had signed an 
agreement, a^; we understood, or as I understood 

Dr. MCALLISTER : Not signed. 

Dr. GEORGE : Agreed to the basis. Now. that was the 
new fact which I desire our brother Mr. Milligan to take note 
of. That was the new fact that came before the Presbytery. 
I submit to you. whether or not it was an important fact? Is 
it in your mind an important fact whether there was an or- 
ganization or not? 

A DELEGATE : Did any of the four present object to Mr. 
Temple's statement? 

Dr. GEORGE : Well, you can ask those questions when 
the time comes. 



FRIDAY, JUNE 5. 



199 



A DE LEG- ATE : I insist on Mr. Torrens' point. 

Rev. D. S. FAR1S : I rise to agree with that. 

Rev. J. R. J. M1LLIGAN : I want to say the same. For 
my own part I can hardly keep these matters straight and I 
know all about the case. I do not see how the members of 
this Court can get an understanding of anything. 

The MODERATOR: As there is a proper time for ques- 
tions, parties will please keep back their questions at present. 

Rev. O. B. MILLIGAN : 1 want to apologize to Mr. George 
for my interruption. They did not interrupt me. 

Dr.' GEORGE: I have encouraged the interruptions be- 
cause 1 am so anxious you shall get clearly the facts. Now 1 
want to fix again in your minds that on the authority of the 
Secretary of the East End Meeting there came before Pitts- 
burgh Presbytery a fact which was not known to the Judicial 
Committee when they framed their basis, and which fact was, 
that there was a permanent organization formed for the 
maintenance of the principles of this East End Platform ; and 
when that fact was stated by the clerk that Dr. Sproull, who 
was the chairman of the Committee, said to me, "That is 
something we didn't know; that changes the case." I submit 
to the Court, whether or not he was justified in saying that, 
and how much weight you will give that in view of the state- 
ment that no new fact had come to light since the Committee 
had agreed to that basis. 

I pass now to what followed. The assent was withdrawn 
from this basis and the basis was laid on the table. There 
was a proposal at this point to grant certificates of dismissal. 
Now. you have heard something about this proposal to grant 
certificates of dismissal. Let me tell you one or two things 
about that proposal. It has been said that in the Pastoral 
Letter the Committee has stated that Presbytery proposed to 
give them certificates of dismissal to other churches. I wish 
to call attention to the language of the Pastoral Letter, which 
does not necessarily mean that. It states that the proposal 
was made. I am free to say that I had the honor to make the 
proposal. It was brought to my mind by the memorial from 
the New Castle congregation, which stated that this course 
might be taken, that, if there would not be a basis of agree- 
ment, there might be this way out of the difficulty, — a pro- 
posal to give certificates of regular standing to brethren who 
differed from us in views. I thought it would be an easy way 
of solving the difficulty. It has seemed to some a very strange 
thing that, when we were at the point where we were about 
ready to prefer a libel against a man for heinous sin and 
scandal, any one should propose to get out of the difficulty 
by giving them certificates of ministerial standing. Now, as 
I said before, I grant you that there is difficulty, but you are 
welcome to all the advantage it seems to be to any one. I 
present it as the argument to show you that the Pittsburgh 



200 



STENOGBAPHIC REPORT. 



Presbytery, one member of it at least, was anxious to go to 
the very uttermost for a solution of this question that would 
not involve the conflict with brethren. 

I came to a profound conviction that the views held by 
these brethren could not be held by ministers in our church 
with safety to the church, and that the separation was inevit- 
able. I came to a profound conviction that it would be 
greatly to the glory of Christ and for the welfare of our 
church, and for the honor of Christianity, if the separation 
could be obtained without a conflict. As we had not yet 
taken formal process, — as the matter was simply brought to 
the attention of the Court, and no man was libelled, — 1 
thought it might be possible to give certificates that would 
simply state that these brethren were in regular standing and 
dearly beloved among us, but that their views had departed 
from the views of our church, and that they were certified to 
whatever church they wished to go. I thought that would be 
a peaceful thing to do. I know there are some of you who 
think it was a wrong thing, and that their act already was a 
departure from their engagement, and was subject to disci- 
pline. And I know there are some of you who think it was a 
right thing, because you believe that any one who has 
changed his view and wishes to leave his church, ought to be 
allowed to go. 

My brother, J. R. Thompson, has stated on the floor that 
he thought they had given such a letter to Brother Gregg, and 
he had gone out peaceably. I did think the matter could be 
done in that way, and l expect the !STew York Presbytery to 
agree with me in that opinion. Then I do not expect the 
Illinois Presbytery to agree with me. I expect some of them 
think when it comes to a case like this, authority, as a matter 
of course, should be maintained. But I say to both these, we 
mean to claim your vote for this action. If you believe it 
ought to have been done, I want you to know that the offer 
was made to do it and the brethren themselves said that we 
need not trouble ourselves, for they would not accept it. If 
any of you think we should have done that rather than have 
this conflict, why, brother, it was their statement that they 
would not accept it that stopped any further progress in that 
direction. If any jf you think that it was something that 
should not have been done, I want you to support us because 
we did not do it. So that, in either case, whatever your view 
is of that certificate matter, we made the move in that direc- 
tion, and we claim your approval because we didn't do it. and 
we claim your vindication for that reason. I do not know 
that that was the reason we did not, but it was stopped at the 
point at which these brethren said they would not accept it. 

Now I pass one point further, and that is the proposition 
submitted by the young men. That was the next step in the 
procedure. There was no more chance for reconciliation.. 



FRIDAY, JUNE 5. 



201 



We could not agree to abide together in peace of spirit and 
the next step was taken with regard to framing the libel. 
When we met for the consideration of that case there was a 
new development, which I wish to read to you. It was a 
proposition submitted by the brethren. The Minute reads as> 
follows: -'On'the Moderator calling upon the parties to come 
forward' 1 — this was for trial— -a paper was introduced by 
Rev. H. W. Temple signed by the different ministers libelled 
by Presbytery. The paper was as follows : 

•1. We do not hold the East End Platform as a bond of 
union within the Refofmed Presbyterian church, but as an 
expression of individual opinion sent forth for the purpose of 
correcting current misrepresentations. 2. As officers of the 
Reformed Presbyterian church we have kept and intend to> 
keep the laws of this church as to voting at civil elections 
and holding civil office. 3. We will not" in any disorderly 
manner maintain the views expressed in the above mentioned 
East End Platform. 

H. W. Temple. W. Lloyd Samson. 

O. B. Milligan. E. M. Milligan, H. W. Reed." ' r 

A DELEGATE : What date was that? 

Dr. GEORGE : I have not the date of this extract, but a 
brother here says it was December 9th. It was the first 
meeting for trial. Xow the question is in regard to this basis 
submitted, why did not Presbytery accept this basis? It 
sounds very much like the basis which had before been agreed 
upon by the Committee, and which I had better read to you. 
Let me put the two together so you may see how they compare r 
••We disavow the East End Platform as a bond of union within 
the Reformed Presbyterian church and as other than an expres- 
sion of individual opinion. That is the first on our side as~ 
the basis of agreement. The paper submitted by the breth- 
ren — 

Dr. MCALLISTER : On the side of the Judicial Committee 
you mean. 

Dr. GEORGE: The basis of agreement with the Judicial 
Committee. The pjiper submitted by the brethren reads: 
••We do not hold the East End Platform as a bond of union 
within the Reformed Presbyterian church but as an expression 
of individual opinion sent forth for the purpose of correcting- 
current misrepresentations."' It is a little fuller but it does- 
not seem to be very different: 4, As officers of the Reformed 
Presbyterian church we have kept and intend to keep the 
laws of this church as to voting at civil elections and holding- 
civil office. 1 * -'We will not in any disorderly manner main- 
tain the views expressed in the above mentioned East End 
Platform." The last item of the basis of agreement with the- 
Judicial Committee is this: "We engage not to propagate 
contrary views to the aboA'e while holding the position of 
ministers of the Reformed Presbyterian church.' 1 You notice 



202 



STENOGRAPHIC REPORT. 



the difference between the two. In the one case they say, "We 
will not in any disorderly way maintain the views expressed ; ,? 
in the other case they engage themselves "not while ministers 
of the Reformed Presbyterian church to propagate contrary 
views to the above." There were two difficulties about ac- 
cepting this basis. The first was that these brethren did not 
regard the East End Meeting as disorderly. Mark you, they 
protested against the action of Presbytery saying it was dis- 
orderly, They did not believe it was disorderly, and the in- 
formation of Presbytery at this time was, from the Secretary 
of that Meeting, that they had organized, — that they had 
organized, — for the propagation of these views. Yet they 
protested on the floor that Presbytery should not say that that 
was a disorderly meeting or that it was a meeting to be con- 
demned. Now they submit to us a basis in which they say, "we 
will not in any disorderly way maintain the views expressed 
in the above mentioned East End Platform." 

I want to know how much significance that could have to 
the Presbytery that had condemned the East End Meeting, as 
long as they held that Meeting to be an orderly procedure? 
They understood it was the right of private conference, — that 
it was the right of free discussion, — and that it was a right 
they could not waive as Reformed Presbyterians and Cove- 
nanters! Well, Pittsburgh Presbytery felt it was a wrong 
which the Reformed Presbyterian church could not permit, — 
the organization of a company within herself on a platform 
that they regarded as against her standards. There is a very 
wide difference, and as long as that difference remained the 
significance of that term vitiated the whole proposed basis. 

Now it has seemed to some a very unreasonable thing that 
we did not accept that, and yet do you not see that if we ac- 
cepted that we yielded what was the whole question at issue, 
— the right of men so to propagate their views? Presbytery 
did not regard the thing as settled. It was the last hour, just 
"before the trial, and the desire still remained with us to avoid 
it. Presbytery laid that on the table and took up its own 
basis of agreement, or rather, not its own basis, but the basis 
submitted by the Judicial Committee, — upon which the fol- 
lowing action was taken: "The amendment of the first item 
of the paper tendered by the brethren libelled, which was 
tinder consideration at the time of taking recess, was taken 
up. Item 1. of the paper was amended as follows: You 
understand this paper to be the one submitted by these 
brethren, and it was amended to read as follows: "1. We 
disavow the East End Platform as a bond of union within the 
Reformed Presbyterian church and as other than an explana- 
tion of individual opinion; and we hereby announce our 
withdrawal from the organization formed at the East End 
^Meeting." That is the bisis of agreement as prepared by the 
Judicial Committee, with the addition, "and we hereby an- 



FRIDAY, JUNE 5. 



203 



siounce our withdrawal from the organization formed at the 
East End Meeting.' ' Why did Presbytery put that to it? 
Because Presbytery had gotten hold of that new fact, that 
there was an organization. When this basis was adopted they 
had the testimony of the Secretary of the East End Meeting 
that there was a permanent organization. Pittsburgh Pres- 
bytery regarded that as a vital point, and they put into this 
Ibisis the addition that they should withdraw from the 
organization formed at that time. Was it not a reasonable 
thing to do in view of the new light they had received? I 
think it was. 

Item 2. was taken up. Moved to substitute the following: 
■"2. We engage to abide by the existing laws of this church 
as to voting at civil elections and holding office, and to carry 
them out in the exercise of our office." The only difference 
between that and the other as far as I can see is, they say, as 
•officers we agree not to do so and so, or to do so and so; and 
in this case the} r agree to carry out the laws in the exercise of 
their office. You may say that is a distinction without a de- 
ference, but it is possible it may be misunderstood. 

There are some who hold a higher standard for officers 
than others; and men might say, we will not as officers, or we 
-will as officers, do so and so ; while in the other case it means, 
■"we will as officers exercise the discipline of the church;" 
and in that way I think they meant just what we mean. I do 
not know why they departed from our form. If they meant 
the same thing, I don't know why they changed it. I think 
they should have held to the basis of agreement which we 
had already formulated if they meant the same thing. Pres- 
bytery thought that was substantially the same thing; it held 
iirm and substituted the old form. 

Item 3 reads: "We engage not to propagate contrary views 
to the above while holding the position of ministers of the 
Heformed Presbyterian church." That was substituted for 
their statement that they would not propagate in any dis- 
orderly way. I have shown you why that was substituted. 
JXow Pittsburgh Presbytery offered that basis to them and 
they decline!. That was the last offer, as I remember, of 
reconciliation, and there the matter came to issue and the 
trial followed. 

Now, Brethren, I have followed this case down as carefully 
as I could through the different steps. I wish simply to close 
as speedily as I can, — I am surprised I have taken so much of 
your time, — by calling attention to two or three points made 
by these brethren in their speeches. I think you will notice, 
if you have accepted the argument as presented, how it almost 
-entirely sweeps away their claim of injustice and wrong. 
What they shall have to say in rejoinder to it you will hear. 

I wish to call attention to these points in Mr. Reed's ad- 
dress. He objected that the Minutes were incorrect. My 



204 



STENOGRAPHIC REPORT. 



understanding was that they had a complaint here in regard 
to the correction of the Minutes and that at the beginning of 
the case they withdrew their complaint on that point. I have 
this to say, however, in regard to some of the statements made 
as to the unwillingness to change the Minutes at their sug- 
gestion, that you have seen the same thing in this Court. The 
Court insists that the Minutes shall simply be its conception 
of what it has done and what occurred, and that it cannot al- 
ways incorporate what seems to a member to be what occur- 
red, and it is probably true that in every instance they did 
not get their corrections made, but they withdrew their 
complaint on this point. 

The second matter is, — he stated that there was no attention 
paid to the two petitions, Now you have heard a great deal 
about the petitions from the congregations, and much stress 
is laid upon them. I wish to say that if he means by this 
statement, "no attention paid to them," that they were not 
respectfully heard, he is mistaken. I am satisfied that that 
is not what he means, but, that they were not granted. I 
submit to you that in judicial procedure a church court can- 
not always grant the petitions that are sent to it with refer- 
ence to pastoral relationship. 

In the third place, they declare that we ignored their 
declared purpose and imputed another with regard to the 
publishing ot the East End Platform. They say that they 
had declared their purpose and we ignored their declared- 
purpose, imputed to them another, and prosecuted them on 
that. By Brethren, my answer to that is this : Presbytery 
dealt not with a purpose, but with a fact. She was not deal- 
ing with a purpose, but with a fact. "A man may strike you a 
blow with a club, and you complain it hurts. Well, he says, 
"It is not my purpose to hurt you,'' and he gives you another 
blow. It hurts all the same. Men may put out a platform of 
principles that attacks the church, and they say, "It is not our 
purpose to do any harm;" but the fact remains, and it is not 
a sufficient answer to saj' that you are imputing a wrong pur- 
pose. The East End Meeting was a very definite thing, and 
its Platform is a very definite thing as well. 

Again, the statement was made : "We were deceived by the 
Judicial Committee.'" For this statement four reasons were 
given. They say. it had the form and it had the powers of a 
judicial commission. My Brethren, it had no such powers. If 
it had had, then it would have settled the case. It was be- 
cause it had not the powers of a judicial commission that it- 
could not settle the case. It was stated that it was appointed 
according to the procedure of appointing commissions. WelL 
it was just as well appointed according to the custom of ap- 
pointing committees. There is nothing in that whatever. 
The speaker also said that he was asked to attend a commis- 
sion. I believe that, because the chairman thought it was a 



FRIDAY, JUNE 5. 



205 



commission, and he asked them in that way. It was consti- 
tuted as a commission, he says. He did not know that at the 
time. He learned that afterwards from the Moderator, but he 
was not present at the constitution, and so he was not de- 
ceived at the time by the fact of it being constituted in that 
way. The Committee was constituted in the morning, and 
these brethren were not present when it was constituted. Our 
"brother was not deceived by that fact at the time, as he was 
not there to be deceived, and did not know of the fact at the 
time to be deceived by it. 

There are two or three points in brother E. M. Milligan's 
remarks, to which I wish to refer. He made this generous 
statement, and when I get hold of a generous statement, I 
like to use it. He said, '-We believe the majority honest and 
sincere." Well, it is something to have that much recognized 
when men are complaining of injustice and wrong, — that he 
helieves the majority to be honest and sincere. And he 
thought it necessary to designate particularly and give due 
regard to our brother, the Eev. Dr. J. W. Sproull, who he 
said was through all the proceedings generous and upright in 
his treatment of them, as he has been'all the time. I submit 
that it was something to have such a leader as Rev. J. W. 
Sproull, true^ honest and sincere, and worthy to be trusted, 
and with a majority honest and sincere in Presbytery, subject 
to his leadership, — for he is one of our leaders, and one of the 
oldest amongst us. 

Xow I want to call attention to this fact, that Dr. Sproull 
was the second member of the Committee on Discipline. 
You have heard of the Committee on Discipline, and of the 
great wrong that it inflicted in reviewing the papers and 
enumerating the five or six things which these men were 
charged with in the memorials. That report of the Commit- 
tee on Discipline has been one of the grounds of bitter com- 
plaint. But brother E. M. Milligan was generous enough to 
say that the second member of that body was a man who had 
been fair with them all the time. I want you to notice, that 
this same Dr. Sproull was the chairman of the Judicial Com- 
mittee. That was favorable to them Surely, that one who was 
dealing fairly with them, and not any of the men who were 
persecuting them, was made chairman of that Committee. 
Again, I want you to notice that this same Dr. Sproull, as the 
chairman of the Judicial Committee, made the motion to sub- 
stitute Presbytery's basis for that of the Judicial- Committee, 
on the ground of the new light that had been obtained and 
which made it impossible for Presbytery to accept the old 
basis. Yet these brethren hang a great amount of their 
weight on that fact. 

I wish you to notice that Dr. J. W. Sproull. and all those 
sincere and honest members (no. not quite all of them, I pre- 
sume, but very nearly so) voted for the conviction of these 



206 



STENOGRAPHIC REPORT* 



men when they had heard the trial through. Yet they com- 
plain of injustice and wrong ! Well, it is a good thing to have 
this much common ground, and I want you to give due> 
weight to it. There is one point in connection with that 
thought which I deem necessary to call attention to, lest I 
forget it at the close. I want to fix in your mind that Pitts- 
burgh Presbytery never had but one basis, — never had any 
but the one basis. A great many people think that the report 
presented in the first place by the Judicial Committee, was- 
accepted by the Presbytery. It never -was. Presbytery took 
that report and amended it, and offered to them the amended 
report. 

There are two or three points with reference to J. K. J. 
Milligan, to which I wish to refer. In the first place he says- 
that Presbytery has committed a wrong against him in not 
offering to him the basis adopted by the Judicial Committee r 
for the reason that he had accepted that basis and he never 
withdrew his acceptance from it. 

Now, I want our brother, when he is on the floor again, to 
make clear to this Court on what ground the Presbytery was 
bound to offer him that basis. On what ground was she 
bound to offer him any basis at all. She never promised to? 
She made no engagement that she would offer a basis of 
agreement? She made a good many offers. But when he 
claims as a right to have offered him the basis adopted by the 
Judicial Committee, I want him to remember that Pittsburgh 
Presbytery never accepted the basis adopted by the Judicial 
Committee, was not bound to accept it, and did not agree to 
accept it. When they appointed the Committee that Com- 
mittee was to call a special meeting, because they wouldn't 
trust the Committee to form a basis they were bound to ac- 
cept. Presbytery never gave up her right to form a basis for 
herself. When he insists, Presbytery was bound to offer him 
the basis which he accepted, he insists the thing was settled. 
It was not settled. It is perfectly evident that we did not in- 
tend that that Commiesion or that that Committee should 
settle it. 

The next point is : If he holds, a basis of agreement should 
be offered to him, I want him to make clear to you on what 
ground he claims a basis different from that offered to the 
other brethren. Pittsburgh Presbytery adopted a basis which 
she offered to the other brethren. On their refusal to accept 
that basis Presbytery libelled them, and it was on that occa- 
sion that our Committee moved that Presbytery, having done 
that, that they would substitute their own basis for the one 
that had been disagreed to and discredited,— that Presbytery 
would take that basis in the place of the one which had been 
submitted by the Judicial Committee 

Now Mr. Milligan objects and says that that was wrong to 
him. I want to know on what ground it was wrong? On what 



FRIDAY, JUNE 5. 207 

ground? Why. on the ground that he insists that Preshyteiy 
was bound to give him what they refused to give 10 other 
men. I know he attempts to draw lines of distinction, but I 
want him to make that clear. He was not present at the 
meeting when they were tried, and so did not withdraw his 
assent. That makes no difference. Presbytery had never 
given its assent to that basis, and so if Presbytery never gave 
its assent, which was essential to its acceptance, whether he- 
withdrew his or not made no difference. They were not 
bound to grant it to him. 

What I want to insist upon is this, when he says they were 
bound to offer him the basis they did not offer to the other 
men : On what ground does he demand it? The Presbytery 
had the same evidence that he was at the meeting, as she had 
that the others were. They had the same evidence that he 
still adhered to the unscriptural Platform, and that he was 
responsible for a divisive course by its propagation, as were 
the others. He expressed no regret for it any more than the 
others did. so far as I can recollect, and so far as the records 
show. So I would like to know on what ground he claims to 
have ofiered to him a basis that could not be offered to the 
other men. What was the exact point of difference? 

Mr. Milligan made one statement in regard to the trial 
which I take the privilege of correcting. As I said at the 
outset. Dr. McAllister is to review the process of the trial. 
Mr. Milligan, speaking about challenging votes, or about men 
voting on his case that had not heard his statement, mention- 
ed among others who had v ted, the elder from my congre- 
gation. William Pierce, who is not in this Court; and it was 
regarded as not indicating a high sense of responsibility for 
one to do it. I want to say this : That Mr. Pierce stated to- 
me that he did not vote in A. W. McClurkin*s case and did 
vote in Mr. Milligan's case, for the reason that A. W. Mc- 
Clurkin did not plead in his case, and so he never heard any 
statement from him. but that Rev. J. R. J. Milligan did plead 
in his own case, and he heard his statements on the floor, and 
that he regarded Mr. Milligan's plea as a confession. That 
Mr. Milligan's statements in his plea were such that he did 
not see how he could be retained in the ministry of the Re- 
formed Presbyterian church, and he referred to one state- 
ment, that is also contained in his published statement, that 
if he were a student in the Seminary he would not be able to 
accept the ordination vows of the ministry of the Reformed 
Presbyterian church. 

Mr. Pierce said that it seemed to him that one who could 
make that statement, that, if he was dissolved of these vows, 
he would hardly be held as competent to continue the exer- 
cise of the office of minister, and that was the way that he 
accounted for the fact that he voted in the one case and did 
not vote in the other. As to the question of Mr. Milligan's 



208 



STENOGRAPHIC REPORT. 



being at the meeting, he regarded that as settled by the rec- 
ord that he was there, and the only other fact was the view, 
and he thought that it was satisfactory. Mr. Pierce is a 
conscientious man and would not exercise a right unless he 
felt sure of his ground. 

Xow I wish to make a few general remarks. 

In the first place, it is not a question of the right of private 
opinion. This has been insisted to be an issue as to the right 
of private opinion, and some of the memorials here seem to 
think it is. The Platform of the Meeting was published and 
spread broadcast. Again, Presbytery went to the uttermost 
limit, and I would say. beyond the safety line, when it pro- 
posed to permit men to remain in its ministry holding as pri- 
vate opinions views that were subversive of the fundamental 
principles of the church. Is not that true? That when Pres- 
bytery actually agreed to submit a basis which granted that 
they should be permitted to hold as private opinions views 
that the Presbytery itself condemned as subversive, they 
went to the extremest limit which any man could ask for 
himself as to his right of private opinion ; but especially after 
the offensive opinion had been given to the public. 

In the second place, it is not a question of the right of free 
discussion. My Brethren, Presbytery had gone to the utter- 
most limit in permitting them to argue for days and days 
against the received interpretation of our standards. That 
was free discussion, certainly, as far as it can be permitted. 

My third point is, that it is not a question of unimportant 
difference of views as to a secondary issue. It is a great 
fundamental principle, involving the very life of the church, 
the integrity of our covenants, our fidelity to the kingdom of 
Christ, and to our Lord's command. The question is simply 
this, dear Brethren : Whether men may be retained in the 
ministry of the Reformed Presbyterian church who have 
ceased to believe her fundamental principle as to practical 
political dissent, by promising not to preach to the contrary. 
And this, my Brethren, must determine in your minds 
whether the censure is too severe. It is admitted that these 
views are held and that they are adhered to. It is a question 
then, whether men who hold these views and adhere to them, 
and have no regret for having expressed them in a formal 
Platform, and issued them, can be retained in the ministry of 
the Reformed Presbyterian churchy Because there is no other 
way to dispose of the fact. If they cannct be retained with 
safety without discipline, the only way to put them out was. 
to suspend them. And if they were convicted of following a 
divisive course by holding these view<. there was no other 
possible disposition of the case, but that they should be sepa- 
rated from its ministry. I wonder when I hear men say that 
they were suspended for a trivial offence! It is the* most 
marvellous thing to me that, when they have reviewed this 



FRIDAY, JUNE 5. 



209 



whole course, it seems to them they have been suspended for 
.almost nothing. 

Well, my Brethren, one reason why this sentence must be 
sustained is. that men estimate the «*uilt of the offence by the 
censure you attach to it: and if you say that it is a trivial 
affair, but a trivial offence, for a minister who has been in- 
ducted into the office of pastor of a congregation in a Re- 
formed Presbyterian church to follow a divisive course that 
brings such results as come from this, it is a strange thing to 
me where vou shall tind a ground for serious discipline. 

The MODERATOR : Rev. Dr. McAllister has also been ap- 
pointed to represent Pittsburgh Presbytery, and he will now 
address the Court. 

Dr. DAVID McALLISTER : Mr. Moderator, Fathers and 
Brethren, of the Reformed Presbyterian Synod: You will 
notice that the aim of those who are called upon to defend 
the Pittsburgh Presbytery is. to secure the fullest possible 
discussion of this case. There is no pleading of informality. 
I might refer to what I have witnessed in our Synod and in 
other Courts time and again. — the strict application of the 
laws of order. If a paper were presented under the name of 
an appeal which was strictly a complaint, it would be ruled 
out. If a paper were presented under the name of a com- 
plaint which was strictly an appeal, take it either one way or 
the other, it would be ruled out. We have sought to make 
no such applications in strictness of the rules of order of our 
Synod. 

One instance particularly demands notice. One of these 
complainants served his declinature upon the Pittsburgh 
Presbytery. I shall refer to this more fully by and by. 
Whenever a man declines the authority of a court, that de- 
clinature cuts him off from any consideration of his case until 
his declinature has been settled. His declinature should be 
heard, with the reasons for his declining the authority of the 
Court. We have not even insisted on that. We have per- 
mitted one, who has declined the authority of the Pittsburgh 
Presbytery, on grounds that laid grievous charges against the 
•Court, without requiring him to substantiate his charges, to 
come before this Court with all the rights of a complainant. 
Xow it is evident enough to you that there is no attempt made 
to cover over anything whatever. 

Let me also, as a preliminary point, speak of the known 
liberality of those that have been called upon to defend the 
action of Pittsburgh Presbytery. I am not sure that I am 
doing my good brother George full justice when I thus asso- 
ciate him with nryself ; for I have been regarded as a liberal 
among liberals in many respects, and I have had to bear a 
great deal of a burden as being a liberal. I am perfectly 
willing to bear the full responsibility for all the liberal senti- 
ments that I have uttered. 



210 



STENOGRAPHIC REPORT. 



I take occasion to refer to this matter in this connection to 
show that this defence of Pittsburgh Presbytery, and the 
action of the defendants, do not spring from any prejudice or 
any ill will. 

It is a well known fact that these brethren were closer to 
me in many respects than were members, for example, of the 
Illinois Presbytery. It is well known that if there had been 
any classification made of the Keformed Presbyterian Synod, 
in all probability the classification would have thrown me on 
the side of the men that are now before the Court, in many 
very important respects. Whereas, the classification might 
have thrown me out of the ranks of these brethren who have 
been regarded as pre-eminently conservative, who would 
hold at all hazards to the great distinctive features of the 
church. 

I must mention in this connection an incident. It conies 
out in what I shall give more fully in connection with another 
point. At the meeting of the Judicial Committee, the Kev. 
H. W. Temple, as has already been stated, called out one 
member of the Committee. That member was myself. He 
presented certain facts before me. which I wish to give you 
more fully presently, and after this had been done. I said to 
him: ''You have made a great mistake. Some of the senti- 
ments in that Platform I endorse: many of those sentiments I 
condemn. This particular point you know that I condemn 
with all my soul. You know that in some of these things, 
and particularly the question of church union, when that is 
properly stated, I take grounds here where many might not 
agree with me, but grounds I believe to be Scriptural and 
right." . 

I brought the matter frankly before him. and I said : -ion 
know that it cannot be anything personal that leads me to 
take my stand against what I believe to be your error and 
mistake, and the error and mistake of all that you have been 
associated with. 1 ' The answer that was given to me when I 
spoke my belief in that way was this: "We all know your 
views on some points; we expected you to go with us. and 
we are mad at you because you didn't." I mention this 
simply to bring out the facts in reference to what might have 
been expected. You will understand, then, that there is no 
want of sympathy with these young men in some things that 
I believe to be right: no want of disposition to stand by them 
iu what I believe to be right; but when it comes to the ques- 
tion that is the great question before us to-day, it is for every 
man to stand according to his convictions of the truth and not 
according to any ties of friendship in the past. He must stand 
as he shall answer before the bar of Him who is the Judge of 
us all. 

I will just mention in this connection another point, for the 
reason that misinterpretation has been wide spread, or at least 



FRIDAY, JUNE 5. 



211 



misunderstanding, if not misinterpretation. It was stated on 
the floor of this Synod a few days ago that I was so great a 
Liberal that I had voted for John C. Fremont; and the im- 
pression has gone out that, while a member, and a minister, 
too, in all probability, (the view might have been presented, 
if not a minister, a member.) I had taken part at a civil 
election. 

Now I wish the facts to be understood. I did vote for John 
C. Fremont for President of the United States in the Pres- 
idential election of 1856. I was not a member of the Reformed 
Presbyterian church at that time. I had never yet made a 
profession of my faith. I had been brought up in a Covenan- 
ter family, and like a great many boys born in this country, I 
had a feeling of patriotism which led me to think that I ought 
in such a campaign as that to take part; and I did take part, 
speaking and voting on behalf of John C. Fremont, 

My act at that time led me to a careful consideration of the 
whole subject. I studied the whole question of political dis- 
sent and non-incorporation, as I had never studied it before, 
and the result was that the winter following my voting for 
Fremont I united with the Reformed Presbyterian church. 

And I want here to bear testimony to a member of this 
Court who was then my pastor, the Rev. J. B. Williams, — 
that it was through his faithful presentation of the duty of 
Covenanters, and not only of Covenanters, but of all loyal 
American citizens to take that position, — it was through his 
faithful maintenance of this ground, and his influence upon 
me (for I was under his care at that time as a student, and 
enjoying the benefits of the instructions which he was giving 
me with so much kindness and generosity), — it was largely 
through that influence, as well as through the influence of my 
sainted father and of my sainted mother, that 1 was led to 
embrace the principles of the Reformed Presbyterian church, 
to which I hold to-day, and to which I trust I shall hold, 
while life shall last. Let it not be charged, then, that I have 
been guilty of the violation of the law of the church. 

To my voting on Constitutional Amendments I need not 
refer, more than to say that I did so, but not in violation of 
the law of the church. When the church says positively by 
her law tfiat no member shall do that, then I shall have to 
decide the question for myself whether 1 can stay within her, 
when she lays that obligation upon me; and I am free to say 
that I do not think I can. If she should make it imperative 
that no member could vote on Constitutional Amendments, 
in my loyalty to God and his truth I would feel constrained 
peacefully to withdraw. 

Now let me pass on to that which is also preliminary, — the 
matter of Scriptural citations to which we have had reference 
in large number, together with the statements that have been 
made that we have not any Scripture on the other side ap- 



212 



STENOGRAPHIC REPORT. 



pealed to; th at we have no Scripture whatever in the libel, 
and no appeal to Scripture in settling the great question that 
we have before us. 

I notice on page 6, of this copy of the Complaints and Ap- 
peals which I have, under the second reason of Protest and 
Appeal, given by W. Lloyd Samson, passages of Scripture, as 
follows: "Isaiah i, 18; liii, 1-3; Matthew x, 42; xi, 28-30; 
John vi. 35 and 40; vii, 37; Acts ii, 37-41 ; viii, 35-38." 

That is not the half of them; I need not take up your time 
in reading them. These were not given in the address that 
was made. I have taken the opportunity to examine a num- 
ber of these, all of them, I think, and after I examined these 
passages of Scripture, one after another, there came to my 
mind what I heard about Dr. Black, of such honorable mem- 
ory, and connected with the Covenanter church of Pittsburgh 
before the time of the defection of 1833. 

He was on one of the boats on the Ohio river, and one of 
those errorists, so common in the country, had gathered 
around him a company who were listening to his assault upon 
the doctrines of grace, particularly upon the doctrine of the 
vicarious atonement of the Lord Jesus Christ. After he had 
cited passage of Scripture after passage, Dr. Black, who was 
standing of? a little distance, quietly came up, right in the 
midst of the company, and in his strong stentorian voice re- 
cited a large part of the 1st chapter of I Chronicles. This 
disputant stood by aghast, and said, "'What does that mean, 
sir? What has that got to do with this question?" "Why, 
nothing in the world, but just as much as what you have been 
citing." 

Now, if you will examine these passages of Scripture, you 
will see that there is hardly anything that has a bearing upon 
the question that is before you ; and I propose, as we go on 
with this discussion, to appeal to the Word of God, and read 
passages to you, and ask you to read them with me- that we 
may see how God's Word bears upon these questions that we 
have to decide here at this meeting of our Synod. 

Let me just call your attention to the important points, as 1 
wish to pass by unimportant points. I have many papers and 
notes covering matters that might seem important, but time 
will not permit to take them up, as they are relatively of but 
little importance. 

The three important points, and the points on which you 
will have to vote, are these : 

1. Is this complaint, which is made against the Pittsburgh 
Presbytery, a complaint of injustice and wrong? Not merely 
in so many werds, but as a matter of fact, is there proof 
showing injustice and wrong on the part of Pittsburgh Pres- 
bytery, in conducting this ca&e? Now note what that refers 
to. It means the manner of conducting the case. It means 
all the various points that have been taken up as the case has 



FRIDAY, JUNE 5. 



213 



progressed, — the admissibility of the libel, the relevancy of 
the libel, and so on, as step by step was taken in conducting 
the case, — whether in this, on the part of the Moderator, on 
the part of members of the Court, on the part of any in the 
conduct of the case, there was injustice or wrong. That will 
be the first question that you will have to decide. 

2. Then the second question will be the appeal from the 
sentence of the Court finding these parties guilty of pursuing 
divisive courses. Do they (the appellants) bring forward 
grounds which convince you that that sentence ought to be 
reversed? Is there ground of appeal from that sentence find- 
ing these persons guilty of pursuing divisive courses? 

3. Then the third question will be the appeal from the sen- 
tence of suspension. 

Was this sentence unjustly severe? Or, was it a righteous 
sentence following the verdict which found these parties 
guilty under the libel of pursuing divisive courses? 

And now I wish to take up these three points, for they will 
cover all the legal aspects of the case. 

First. Let us look at the question : Is there ground for 
this complaint of injustice and wroDg against the Pittsburgh 
Presbytery? 1 wish to do here just what it was attempted to 
do in the conduct of the case. Of course, very grave respon- 
sibilities rested upon me as the Moderator of Presbyteiy ; and 
when we took up the case I gave notice that I would follow 
the Book just as conscientiously and closely as it was possible 
for me to follow it. I did attempt to do so without fear or 
favor. low let us examine the case point by point. My 
brother has brought the whole matter down to the trial. I 
need not go back, and do not intend to do so, except to refer 
to one or two matters, which will come up in connection with 
certain points in the conduct of the trial. 

The first thing, then, that we had to consider was, the ad- 
missibility of the charges. Take your Books of Discipline, if 
you please, and turn to page 74, paragraph 16: "If the ac- 
cused puts himself on his defence, before proceeding to trial, 
the first point to be tried is the admissibility of the charges. " 
Then we have in our Book the following statements: ; 'In 
most cases this will have been done before the citation of the 
accused; yet, as he has a right to be heard on that point, and 
may not be present to plead it, and as it may be affected not 
only b} r the position and character of the accuser, but also by 
the admissibility of the testimony and the general and in- 
definite character of the charges, it ought not in some cases 
to be regarded as definitely settled till the accused be heard/' 
Now I do not make anything of the plea that we might have 
settled it without hearing the accused. We wished that the- 
accused should be heard, and fully heard. But I do hold that 
the points presented in the Book, as the points that would 



2L4 



STENOGRAPHIC REPORT. 



bear upon the one question of the admissibility of the charges, 
must be the only points discussed. 

Then, what would come up according to our Book? The 
first thing that is mentioned is, that the admissibility of the 
charges would be affected by the position and character of the 
accuser. If an irresponsible person, some person who himself 
was under censure, had come and made an accusation against 
these brethren, — some person whose character would not 
stand the investigation of the light of divine truth and of the 
order of the church; some one who was held in ill repute in 
the community, — if some one sued as this had come as the ac- 
cuser, then there would have been valid objection against the 
admissibility of the charges. What is the fact? Professor 
Willson took it upon himself, not to be an accuser, but to 
bring before the Presbytery a paper in the form of a libel, it 
was not a libel. It could not be a libel until signed by the 
officers of the Presbytery. 

That paper, which contains, however, the substance of the 
charges, was referred to the Committee on Discipline. They 
had it in their hands. It came into the hands of the Judicial 
Committee in due time, and it was reviewed again by the Ju- 
dicial Committee. After all the various steps, which you have 
heard detailed, had been taken, a form of libel came to Pres- 
bytery, and. with the Moderator's signature and the Clerk's 
signature attached, that document became the document of 
the Court. It was the Court's own libel. By the authority of 
Presbytery itself this libel was prepared and served, and the 
citation was served upon these persons. Who, then, was the 
accuser? Why the Presbytery itself. Was it a party? No, 
not a party. Oar Book expressly declares that in cases of 
this kind the inferior judicatory does not become a party. It 
is simply attempting to carry into operation the law of the 
church, and when it becomes the accuser in this way, it re- 
presents the entire church; it represents the dignity and the 
order and the welfare of the entire body with which it is con- 
nected. Here, then, was the accuser in this case. Could any 
objection be made against the accuser? Was there anything 
that would rule out Pittsburgh Presbytery for any wrong- 
motive, any wrong purpose, any want of responsible charac- 
ter, from bringing this libel against the persons that were 
named? 

My dear Brethren and Fathers in the Lord, let me recall to 
you, when I think of the men who are in that Presbytery, of 
the elders as well as the ministers that gathered there, how in 
sorrow of heart, manifested at every step taken, with their 
very souls wrung with anguish, they took this step, because 
they were constrained by a sense of duty to take it, and for no 
other reason. Why, how could it be from any other reason? 
What selfish object could a Presbytery have to take such a 
step against a number of young men, whose moral character 



FRIDAY, JUNE 5. 



215 



was not impeached, whose brilliant talents were recognized 
fully, who had been trained at such expense in our institu- 
tions of learning, and settled over congregations ; what would 
be the unworthy motive that would influence gray-haired 
elders in the church, and brethren in the ministry upon whom 
the burden of the work of the church begins to tell very 
heavily, to take a step the tendency of which would be, and 
the end of which would be— unless there would be a settle- 
ment — to throw out of the ministry of the Keformed Presby- 
terian church those who had been trained at such cost; those 
who have been the objects of so many prayers, so many earn- 
est supplications at the throne of heavenly grace? The ac- 
cuser in this case was one whose character would stand com- 
parison, in view of all the circumstances and motives that 
eould appear, with the accuser in any case known in all the 
history of the Reformed Presbyterian church. 

In the second place, let me note the next thing that is men- 
tioned in this appeal, — the general and indefinite character of 
the charges. If there .had been general and indefinite charges, 
there would have been just ground for voting against the ad- 
missibility of the libel. That is, if there had been something- 
said about certain words being spoken, and nobody could tell 
exactly what the words were, or whether they had any bear- 
ing upon the vital principles of the church or not. — if charges 
of that vague and indefinite kind had been incorporated in the 
libel, then the vote of that court should have been against ad- 
mitting them. But what are the facts'? The facts are these: 
In the first place we have the men charged with pursuing a 
divisive course. There is nothing general or indefinite about 
that. It is pointed, it is clear, it is specific. 

What are the specifications under that charge? Being pres- 
ent at the East End Meeting, formulating its Platform, and 
thus being responsible for the circulation of the Platform, and 
avowing in open court approval of that Platform. Here we 
have the charges in specific detail. Is there anything general 
in them? Is there anything indefinite about these charges? 
There was the Platform; you could examine it. One partic- 
ular plank was selected. 

Now understand, the Presbytery did not mean to pass by 
other portions of that Platform as not beiug worthy of con- 
demnation. There were other portions of the Platform that 
ought to be condemned, and that Presbytery did condemn. 
But Presbytery thought it would simplify this trial to bring 
only this second plank in, and that makes the specifications 
more definite. 

The charge is not general. It brings the issue to a clear 
and definite point, and thus this second requirement of our 
Book was fulfilled to the very letter,— the charges were not 
general, indefinite and vague, but they were pointed and 



216 



STENOGRAPHIC REPORT. 



specific. On this ground, therefore, there could be no vote 
against the admissibility of the charges. 

The next point is with regard to the admissibility of the 
testimony. 

On this point I am very confident. Fathers and Brethren, 
that there has been a great deal of vagueness in the minds of 
many as to what constitutes testimony. Of course, you can 
bring a witness and let him testify to Avhat he has heard any- 
one say; that would be testimony. You can bring a docu- 
ment, which can be duly certified in one way or another. 
There may be links of connection. It may take two or three 
links to show how it is all connected together: but when you 
prove the links of connection, you can take a copj^, or a copy 
of a copy, and trace it back to the original link. You can 
make that to be testimonj-, and it is just as clear and definite 
as any testimony that may be adduced. 

Here, then, with regard to this, let me say again, there was 
no attempt to bring any testimony of this kind, for there was 
no need of it. 

The testimony was there; the testimony was specific. 
There was the Platform. There was the plank of it men- 
tioned in the libel. The Court itself had heard all these per- 
sons avow their approval of the whole of that Platform. That 
was done in the. hearing of the Court. 

Do any of you say that is no true testimony? 

I appeal here to the well known law of the Scottish church. 
I turn to Steuart's Collections (Edinburgh edition of 1830). 
page 408, of Vol. 1. which lays before us with the utmost 
clearness the principle that controls in all such cases : - 4 A1- 
though judges cannot be both judges and witnesses, yet he is- 
a witness and a judge, too. of what he sees and hears in judg- 
ment, for these are counted as notour'* (or. matters of noto- 
riety) . 

That is, what comes before a court in any process of dis- 
cipline, or judgment, not only when the trial is actually on 
hands, but in leading up to it, that is competent testimony. 

Who is the witness? It is the Court itself . The Court itself 
has heard, and the Court does not need to testify. The Court 
is the witness as well as the judge. 

This is the principle recognized in our Presbyterian law,, 
that what is done in the presence of the Court, the Court is- 
competent to take in hand and deal with by discipline on the 
spot. The testimony is there. 

What I wish to bring to your attention, Fathers and Breth- 
ren, is this : That just at that very time, the Pittsburgh Pres- 
bytery could have convicted these men. who. in the hearing 
of the Court, put themselves upon the record against the 
principles of our church, as they did. to the utter astonish- 
ment of some of the members let me mention an illustra- 
tion just here. 



FRIDAY. JUNE 5. 



211 



Dr. Sproull, so far advanced in years that he could hardly 
comprehend all the circumstances of the case, sat there, hav- 
ing come out in the good providence of God. and heard 
speech after speech that was being made. He could not re- 
frain from astonishment, and he rose up and said: "Mr. 
Moderator, what does this mean? What does this assailing of 
the principles of our church mean?" He could not compre- 
hend it ; and no wonder. It was nothing but the leniency of 
Presbytery that prevented bringing the trial to a close. It 
could have been brought to a close before the libel was issued 
at all. and again and again during the course of the trial, be- 
cause these utterances were directly against the principles of 
the church. 

These persons, on this principle of the old Scottish law r 
might have been found guilty and dealt with, the Court itself 
being the witness in the case. 

Xow before I leave this point, I wish to answer another 
argument which has been made by way of justification of the 
accused, viz.. that no admission was made of the purpose or 
fact of following a divisive course from the law and order of 
the church. I wish you to notice the language. I have drawn 
it from the appeals as they have been read, — u no admission 
was made of the purpose or fact of following a divisive course 
from the law and order of the church." 

"Why. certainly, there was none made! As you have already 
heard, the Court did not deal with what would be the purpose 
in the minds of persons accused. Admission was made of the 
fact of being at the East End Meeting, and formulating its 
Platform. Admission was made of the fact of giving support 
and approval to that Platform. These were the admissions 
that were made. 

Who was to judge whether this was pursuing divisive courses 
or not? You arrest an individual and bring him before a court 
for pursuing a divisive course, for breaking the church up 
into fragments ; and the person when arraigned before you 
says. ,k I do not admit that I purposed anything of the kind.' r 
Why. of course he would be very likely to say he had no 
purpose of doing that. Or. he says. "I do not admit I am the 
responsible one for the fact; I admit the fact; I admit the 
church is divided, but I do not admit that I am responsible 
for that." Why, this is just what might be expected of any 
one. 

It was for the Court to decide. The Court had before it 
the evidence on the testimony of the Court itself, that here 
was a platform ; here was an adherence to it; here was the 
division of the church, (which I wish to call attention to 
further on.) a lamentable state of affairs, the church divided; 
and the Court could put two and two together. According to> 
its own judgment it did connect cause and effect. The Court, 
therefore, said, "The East End Platform is a fact that you 



218 



STENOGRAPHIC REPORT. 



admit; and you say you still adhere to it. These facts are 
responsible for the condition of things.' 1 

When there was the admission made of the fact, there was 
no necessity of asking admission of the purpose, or admission 
of their belief in any cause of the fact, it was enough for the 
Court itself, as it was its responsible duty, to conclude that 
the facts before it warranted the decision, according to its 
own best judgment in the case. 

Another point to be noticed is that an appeal was now 
taken; and this, it has been strongly urged, ought to have 
arrested all proceedings. 

I never heard of that before, and I wonder that anything 
like it should be pleaded. Why, let me examine that just 
lor moment. Perhaps I had better look at it in another con- 
nection more fully, and it will be enough here to refer to this 
one point. 

Our Book, speaking of an appeal, says: "An Appeal is the 
removal of a case already decided by an inferior judicatory to- 
a superior by a party aggrieved." (Book of Discipline, pages 
■80, 81.) 

"The removal of a case already decided." Yet here you 
have a case where an appeal is taken on the question of the 
admissibility of the charges. Is the case decided at that 
point? Has the case come to such an issue that an appeal 
•can be entered here? Why, 1 hardly need to wait to reason 
with you on that point. It comes up in another connection. 

However, I just wish to say here, that an appeal taken at 
that point is really not an appeal at all. When the case has 
been decided, that may be made a ground of appeal. That 
may come in as one of the grounds of appeal subsequently as- 
signed, at its own proper time. But an appeal, so called, on a 
question of mere admissibility of the charges, is not an appeal 
according to any authority in Presbyterian law. 

Now I come to the relevancy of the libel, and as it is just 
about twelve o'clock perhaps I had better arrest the discus- 
sion. 

(A motion was made to take a recess until two o'clock, 
which being duly seconded was carried.) 

AFTERNOON SESSION. 

The MODERATOR: Dr. McAllister has the floor, speaking 
on behalf of Pittsburgh Presbytery. 

Dr. DAVID MCALLISTER: Mr. Moderator, Fathers and 
Brethren: I may briefly restate the points to which I have 
called your attention. 

You are to vote— 1. Upon the complaint of injustice and 
wrong brought against Pittsburgh Presbytery. 2. Upon an 
appeal from the decision of that Court finding the appellants 
guilty of pursuing divisive courses. 3. And in the third place 
upon an appeal from the sentence imposed upon those that 



FRIDAY, JUNE 5. 



219 



have been found guilty, suspending them from the exercise of 
the Christian ministry. 

I took up the first of these points briefly this morning, 
showing you that there had been no injustice and no wrong 
done to the complainants. The grounds on which they 
complain of injustice and wrong must refer to the manner of 
procedure in the process of trial. The appeals will be from 
the decision reached and from the seutence of the Court. 

The first thing that comes up necessarily in reference to the 
conduct of the trial is the admissibility of the charges. I 
have called your attention to three possible ways, in which 
injustice or wrong might have been done. These three ways 
are mentioned in'bur own Book of Discipline, and to these I 
ask you to refer, as members of the Court, that you may have 
the matter distinctly before you. On page 74, paragraph 16, 
our Book points out the first way in which injustice or wrong 
may be done, and it is in reference to the position and 
character of the accuser. In this respect, I showed you that 
it was the Presbytery itself, without any possible unworthy 
motive, that was the accuser. Ihen the second way pointed 
out is, the general and indefinite character of the charges. 
These were shown to be specific, clear and definite. I need 
not to go over them again. In the third place, with regard to 
the admissibility of the testimony I showed you that the 
testimony was the highest kind of testimony ; that is, the 
testimony heard in the Court itself, the Court itself being the 
witness; and this is recognized in all church law and ecclesi- 
astical procedure as the highest testimony on which a church 
court can act. 

I shall proceed to the consideration of the second point, 
and that is the relevancy of the libel. Our law on this you 
will find on page 74, in paragraph 17, and is : '-The first thing 
to be considered on the trial— that is, after the charges have 
been judged admissible — the first thing to be considered is the 
relevancy of the libel ; that is, whether the charges if proved 
be censurable. On this the accused, if present, has a right to 
be fully heard, but not in making a plea against the principles 
of his public profession." (Book of Discipline, page 74.) 

Now i ask you to consider with me carefully the nature of 
a libel, that we may understand what the relevancy of the 
libel is. And once more I refer to this store-house of ec- 
clesiastical law, compared with which there is not anything 
on the face of the earth, — there never has been such a store- 
house gathered as the famous ' ; Steuart Collections, *' called 
also the '-Pardovan Collections. " And I am asking you to 
consider with me this subject of the relevancy of the libel, and 
with this the more general question of the nature of a libel. I 
read from page 400, Vol. I., of Steuart's Collections : u A libel 
is a law syllogism, consisting of the proposition or relevancy, 
which is founded upon the laws of God, or some ecclesiastical 



220 



STENOGRAPHIC REPORT. 



constitution agreable thereto, as whosoever is absent from 
public service on the Lord's day ought to be censured. The 
second part consists of the subsuniption or probation, which 
condescends on matter of fact, viz., But such a person did,, 
upon such or such a Lord's day, absent unnecessarily from the 
public worship of God. The third part consists of the 
sonclusion or sentence, which contains a. desire that the 
profaner of the 7 .ord's day, according to the laws and customs 
mentioned in the first part may be censured.'* This word 
"subsumption,"is one of those peculiar words of the old ec- 
clesiastical law ; and it means, that which is brought under- 
neath the first part of the libel. 

Now keep these three elements of the libel before you r 
First. There is the charge, whether it be absenting one's self 
from the Lord's house on the Sabbath, contumacy, insubordi- 
nation, contempt of the Courts of the Lord's house, pursuing 
divisive courses, or whatever else it may be. Second. Then 
comes what is called here, technically, the "subsumption."' 
That is, such a person, against whom the libel is brought, did 
on such an occasion and in such a manner commit this very 
scandal, or immorality, or whatever it may be, that is 
mentioned in the first part of the libel. Third. Then comes 
the third point, the "probation:" and in consequence the 
censures of the Lord's house should be inflicted upon such a 
one. 

Suppose we take up an ordinary case, as it would come 
probably in most instances in a charge of pursuing divisive 
courses. The order would be this : We will say that A. B. is 
charged with pursuing divisive courses • the subsumption is 
that he did this on such a day of the month, in such a year, 
in such a place, in the use of such and such words; that he 
spoke such and such things contrary to the good order, the 
law, and the testimony of the house of God with which he 
was connected, so as to break it up; so that the legitimate 
effect would be the dividing of the house of God. In ordinary 
cases witnesses would need to be brought. That is, what had 
been thus spoken at different times and different places would 
not be before the Court, without testimon}^, probation, or 
proo : and therefore witnesses who would be present at such 
a place would be brought forward, and they would give their 
testimony that the said A. B. did on such an occasion, at such 
a time, and at such a place, give utterence to these words. 
But in this case, such testimony was not needed. There was 
no necessity to bring C. D. and E. F. to testify that at such a 
time and such a place words were spoken, or a divisive course 
was being as a matter of fact pursued. That proof was al- 
ready before the Court. The Court itself was the witness to 
that fact. It did not need anybody to come in to testify. 
You may say, how was this? The Court itself the witness? 
And what it heard the testimony? Exactly. 



FRIDAY, JUNE 5. 



221 



Let me dwell a little longer on that which relates to the 
admissibility of the testimony. And I wish now to refer to it 
in connection with the libel. I turn to page 402 of this same 
volume of the Laws of the Church of Scotland, and I read as 
follows: "Probation is that whereby the judge is convinced 
that what is asserted is true ; and he must he convinced either 
by confession or oath of party, or writ, witnesses, or presump- 
tions, as follows: Probation by confession if judicial, is the 
strongest of all probation." Mark that, — Probation by con- 
fession, if judicial.'' That is, if in the presence of the Court; 
if before those who are judges and witnesses at the same time, 
it is the strongest kind of probation. This is the proof which 
the Court had in this particular instance. 

Every one of these young men, with the exception of one 
whose case is an exception because of what he himself has 
stated, the case of A. W. McClurkin, and whose case I leave 
for special consideration a little further on, — admitted his 
connection with the East End Meeting. This was the testimony. 
This was the proof in the hearing of the Court itself. It was 
the strongest kind of evidence to the subsumption, that is, the 
specifications under the general charge of pursuing divisive 
courses. 

This is a principle which is recongnized also it other books, 
but I will turn to them in another connection. 

The specifications in the present case, as we have already 
seen, were the attendance on the East End Meeting, the 
formulation of the East End Platform, as well as the circula- 
tion of it, and the approval given to the principles of the East 
End Platform, which being true, and the proof was before the 
Court itself, said persons were found worthy of censure for 
having pursued a divisive course. Just at this point there 
may seem to be a little difficulty in the minds of members of 
this Court. You may say, is it not said, "The accused, if 
present, has a right to be fully heard?" The ruling of the 
Moderator of Pittsburgh Presbytery was, that the accused had 
a right to be heard in arguing whether the pursuing of divi- 
sive courses was relevant to censure or not. That was the de- 
cision of the Moderator of Pittsburgh Presbytery. The young 
men maintained that they had a right to argue on the specifi- 
cations or the subsumption. The Moderator ruled they had 
no right so to do, and for this reason: "The accused has a 
right to be fully heard, but not in making a plea against the 
principles of his public profession." That is what our Book 
says (pages 74, 75) . It is explicit. It puts down the law so 
that the officers of our courts are bound to go by it, and if 
they fail to go by it, they open up themselves and their rul- 
ings and the actions of the Court to very serious conse- 
quences. This rule is, that no man in arguing against the 
relevancy of a libel that has been brought against him, has 



222 



STENOGRAPHIC REPORT 



any right to be heard in making a plea against the principle? 
of his profession. 

Then further, as connected with this same subject, there 
are other extracts, which I need not take time to read at 
large. This Book (Steuart's Collections) tells in reference to 
probation that there are times when the probation will pre- 
cede the settlement of the question of the relevancy of the 
libel, and that is just in this particular instance. As a rule 
probation follows, in the ordinary case, such as that to which 
I have referred, when witnesses would be brought to testify 
to what the Court had not itself heard. Then these witnes>e- 
might be heard in immediate connection. 

First, you would have the decision as to the relevancy of 
this subsumption. and then the proof; but when it is a matter 
that the Court itself, as a witness, has heard.— that is, before 
a libel has been framed, — as I said this morning, it is for the 
Court to decide whether it will discipline such a person on 
the spot or not. It may. having the testimony directly before 
it, discipline without the form of trial. But it may. if it see fit. 
incorporate the charges into a regular libel, and thus bring" 
the matter in that due form, with all the details: and then it 
does not need the proof of what it has already had before it. 
This is what. I maintain, finds a place in the cases that come 
before your reverend body. 

Let me say. still further, in connection with this subject, 
that the probation of the specification was admitted to be 
complete, with the exception of one case, to which I have re- 
ferred. Let me remind you of the facts in that case, the case 
of Mr. MeCTurkin. He at length denied, not the facts. — he 
did not deny the facts; he did'not deny that he had been at 
the East End Meeting; he did not deny the fact of having 
given approval to the East End Meeting.— but he denied the 
possession by the Court of evidence of the facts. Mark that 
distinction carefully. Let me go over it once mere, that you 
may have it in your minds. In this instance the denial was 
not of the facts.' but it was a denial of possession by Pitts- 
burgh Presbytery of evidence of the facts. I shall take that 
up a little more fully further on. 

An appeal was taken from the Moderator's refusal to record 
his decision as to relevancy. There was no grornd for any 
appeal here. Suppose the appeal had teen taken in full foim 
just at this time. The Couit was under no obligation to regard 
any appeal of this kind. It v as not an arpeal ficm anything- 
that was really a subject matter of appeal. 

What has the Moderator to do with n:akirg a record of hi& 
decision, let me ask? You will notice frcm the way this ap- 
peal was put. it is an appeal from the Moderator's refusal to 
record his decision as to relevancy. It is the business cf the 
i s to be recorded. It is not for the 



FRIDAY, JUNE 5. 



223 



Moderator to record anything. It is not for the Moderator to 
order the clerk to put anything upon the record. 

If there had been any objection to a failure of record being- 
made in this instance, the proper place would have been. 
when the record of the proceedings of the Court was read. 
Then, if there were no record of the Moderator's decision, let 
there be an appeal taken from a failure to put into the rec- 
ord, by the proper officer of the Court, a decision that any 
one might have thought ought to have been recorded. The 
Moderator maintained that it was not his place to put upon 
record any such decision. He gave his decision, and it was 
for the Court itself to make the record as it saw fit in refer- 
ence to the decision which the Moderator gave. 

Then again, as to the appeal from the vote sustaining the 
relevancy of the libel. In this connection, again, I would 
refer to these authorities which we have in Presbyterian Jaw. 
I might refer to any one of the Presbyterian Books, and show 
you the same decision given here, that would apply in the 
case of the admissibility of the charges. The case was not 
decided. Nothing but the second point, the relevancy, had 
been decided. That could be made a ground of appeal from 
the final sentence. When the sentence was at length given r 
then the accused could appeal from the sentence, and he 
could make this refusal to record a decision on the relevancy,, 
or he could make the vote upon the relevancy, one of the 
grounds of appeal which he would present to the superior 
court. Just as in the case of the admissibility of the charges* 
he might enter them into his appeal from the sentence of the 
Court as one of the grounds of that appeal. 

But in neither one of these cases would Presbyterian law 
apply, which says, "An appeal is the removal of a case al- 
ready decided.'" You do not decide a case by passing upon 
the admissibility" of the charges. You do not decide a case 
by passing upon the relevancy of the libel. These are only 
preliminary steps. Not until the case has passed beyond 
that, — the charges admitted, the charges found relevant, the 
probation gone on with, the sentence reached, or even put 
into effect, as it may be, — not until then is the case decided so 
that a person, who is brought before the Court, may properly 
take an appeal. 

Notice the second section here: "Grounds of appeal. ,r 
That is a verv different thing from "■appeals. 1 " 
A MEMBER : What rule is that? 

Dr. MCALLISTER : That is the United Presbyterian Book 
of Discipline. Our own Book is somewhat briefer, but on 
page 80 we have exactly the same thing in substance, under 
the section of Appeals. Paragraph 1 reads: "An appeal is 
the removal of a case already "decided by an inferior judica- 
tory to a superior by a party aggrieved." That is, a party 
must be aggrieved by a final decision, reached by the inferior 



224 



STENOGRAPHIC REPORT. 



judicatory in his case. That is. it must issue the case. The 
case must he decided as a case. Then from that issuing, or 
deciding, the case by the inferior court, the appeal is taken to 
the superior court, and the grounds may be such as are men- 
tioned in this second paragraph, which I was about to read. 

On pao-e 48, of the United Presbyterian Digest, under "Ap- 
peals." is this article : "2. Grounds. — Appeals may be made 
either from a definitive sentence as unjust or mistaken, or 
from any particular step of the proceedings on account of ir- 
regularity, in refusing reasonable indulgence to a party on 
trial, declining to receive important testimony, hurrying to a 
decision before the testimony is all taken, or manifesting 
prejudice in the case." All these are named in this second 
section as grounds of appeal from a definitive sentence, that 
is. a final or decisive sentence. All these may be entered as 
grounds of the appeal, taken after the case has been decided 
by the inferior court, and removed from that by an appeal to 
the superior judicatory. So that 1 maintain, Fathers and 
Brethren, that in the manner of proceeding in these cases, 
which have come before you on these complaints, the Pitts- 
burgh Presbytery has done no injustice; it has done no 
wrong. It has gone according to the law: it has followed out 
the order of the church. It has scrupulously regarded every 
point. 

I must refer to one thing a little more fully. It was decided 
that the argument could not be made when the question of 
relevancw was up, inasmuch as that argument against the 
relevancy of the specifications would bring up the East End 
Platform and all connected with it. and the approval given to 
it. and that that argument would necessarily be a plea against 
the principles of their profession. And inasmuch as our Book 
is explicit on that point, they could not then be heard under 
that motion as to the relevancy, in making such a plea. The 
decision was. that they must wait and make that plea when 
they would be defending themselves; even then, it would be 
a plea such as the Court would permit only in its courtesy, 
because it would not throw one shadow of suspicion upon its 
fairness, and in order to have the fullest and freest discussion 
possible. 

Presbytery had the right to suspend these men on the spot, 
when they had made a plea against their profession ; when 
they had come out against the principles of the church, as 
they did in Pittsburgh Presbytery. Waiving its right to do 
that, it still would give the fullest liberty ; it decided that the 
place for this argument was in the making of their own de- 
fence, after the relevanc} r of the libels had been sustained and 
the proof was all in. Xo testimony more was needed ; the 
testimony was complete. The case was brought right to the 
very point it would have been brought to if there had been 
witnesses who had heard these utterances in some other 



FRIDAY, JUNE 5. 



225 



place, who had come before this Court, been duly sworn, and 
given their testimony ; and if on their testimony, full, clear 
and explicit, the utterances that the Court itself had heard 
had been proved; and then the men had been heard in their 
own defence. The Court followed out to the exact letter all 
these principles of the Presbyterian law from the early days 
of the church of Scotland down to our own day; and in not 
one single particular did the Pittsburgh Presbytery lay itself 
open in this matter to any charge of injustice and wrong. 

I pass on to the third matter under this question of injustice 
and wrong. Other charges we have, and these are somewhat 
miscellaneous in character. I took pains, as the speakers 
went forward one after another, to note down every charge of 
any importance. There may be some slight matters that I 
have not classified here; if so, I would be very glad to have 
my attention called to any. But I think I have omitted none. 

Let me take them up, then, under this third group. — other 
charges of injustice and wrong. 

1st. The charge of a scheme to obtain evidence. Kow, 
Fathers and Brethren, had there been any scheme to obtain 
evidence, I believe Pittsburgh Presbytery would have been 
most blameworthy. The charge is made that it was designed 
to bring these men before Presbytery, and to bring them there 
in such a way, and under such provocation, as to induce them 
to speak and tell all they had to say, in the presence of the 
Court, so as to give the Court sufficient testimony on which 
to go forward with their suspension. 

I do not think that I need to argue before this Court that 
the Pittsburgh Presbytery was incapable of any such scheme, 
or any such design. I can say, for my own part, that that 
thought never entered into the mind of a single Presbyter, so 
far as I know. I never heard the slightest intimation of any- 
thing of that character. From the statement that has already 
been made in your hearing so fully and in so kindly a spirit, 
by my brother who spoke before me, you have evidence 
enough to convince every man of you that there was no such 
scheme. I can bear witness before the Searcher of all hearts 
that my purpose in the Presbytery, and in the Judicial Com- 
mittee (and I know that what I can say of myself is true of 
every other member of the Judicial Committee, and of all the 
members of Presbytery) the one purpose was to bring about, 
if possible, a reconciliation. The one controlling purpose was 
to heal the breach, and to prevent, if possible, this distracted 
condition of things in which we are to-day. 

We are mourning here, before G-od, with this entire country 
looking upon us, and with the papers making us the butt of 
ridicule. All this was anticipated; all this foreseen. With 
the journals that are so ready to seize upon what is sensa- 
tional, taking hold of the condition of things in thia highest 
Court of the Covenanter church in America, and sending 



226 



STENOGRAPHIC REPORT. 



messages broadcast throughout the land, a state of things 
that is looked upon by so many as being a reproach to Chris- 
tianity, — if possible, how could this be avoided? This was the 
thought that was in the minds of all who sought reconcili- 
ation. 

But, furthermore, we thought about the work of the church,, 
especially her mission work at home and abroad. We saw 
how her resources w T ere being diminished. We had sent ad- 
ditional laborers out to Syria and Asia Minor, and were con- 
templating opening up again that most inviting field, the 
Island of Cyprus, and needing money. To bring about such 
a trial as this, would be of incalculable damage to all this 
work, upon which we have set our hearts ; and also to the 
work at home, the mission work among the Freedmen in the 
south, and among the Indians, and among the Chinese ; and 
all this work that is going on in our congregations and settle- 
ments in the western part of the country; funds for this Avork 
being cut short; laborers not receiving the support that it is 
absolutely necessary for them to receive if they are to carry 
forward the Lord's work. 

How could it be any other motive on the part of members 
of this Judicial Committee, or on the part of members of 
Presbytery, than to avoid such possibilities as those, if we 
could only find some way by which we could bring these 
brethren once more to the place which we thought they 
should occupy in the Coveuanter church? It was with that 
view that the effort was made to bring about the reconcili- 
ation at the regular meeting cf Presbytery in October. This 
was the one thing that was in view in the meeting of the 
Judicial Committee on the 22nd of October, and in the meet- 
ing of Presbytery again early in November. 

So step by step, as we became more and more deeply in- 
volved in these heart-rending difficulties, the one end and 
purpose of Pittsburgh Presbytery was to avoid the necessity 
of framing a libel and serving it upon these brethren in the 
Lord. 

Can there be any room for the charge that there was a 
scheme laid, by which, in an artful way, with soft words upon 
our lips, and burning coals of deception and anger in our 
hearts, we would get these young brethren to come to Pres- 
bytery and make statements which we would use as evidence 
against them? Is it possible that such a charge as this could 
lie against the Pittsburgh Presbytery? We are content, dear 
Brethren, to leave it with you, and to let you pass your ver- 
dict upon this ground of complaint. 

The second further point of complaint is, the putting of a 
rider upon the basis of agreement. I have but little to add to 
this, as my brother has already presented this matter "so fully 
before you. The only point which I have to add is in con- 
firmation of what my brother has said, that this was not the 



FRIDAY, JUNE 5. 



227 



work, as was charged, of the Committee. The Committee 
agreed in perfect sincerity upon the basis which has been 
read in your hearing. The Judicial Committee thought the 
matter was settled I went home rejoicing in what I thought 
was the settlement of the trouble. I want to bear my testi- 
mony that I never said a word about that subject. I did not 
speak to a single person in reference to that matter. The' re- 
porters were at my house every day, two or three times a day, 
to obtain news, if possible, in regard to that meeting of the 
Judicial Committee. ISTot one syllable did I give to any one 
of them. And yet the word came out, and I will refer to that 
a little further on. I did not know that my brother Dr. 
George intended to offer any resolutions. I went to the meet- 
ing of Presbytery, where the report of the Judicial Commit- 
tee was to be submitted. 

And just in this connection let me say that I never dreamed 
of that body being anything else than a committee. The idea 
of a commission never entered into my mind. As I was the 
Moderator of the Court when it was appointed, I understood 
distinctly all that took place, as my mind was, of course, 
brought to bear upon it. I recollect that the appointment of 
the Committee was by the nomination by the Committee on 
Supplies, not of a ""commission," but of a ^committee." 
When we met, and when our chairman did, by an oversight 
or forgetfulness, or whatever it was, go through the ordinary 
formula of constituting a commission, and when we arose 
from our knees, we at once expressed our astonishment and 
called attention to the fact, and he at once admitted that he 
had been under a misapprehension. 

Then, in this connection, I wish to have it distinctly under- 
stood, furthermore, that what that Committee did was not 
what a commission would do at all. If it had been what a 
commission would do, that would have settled the case. The 
commission would be the Presbytery itself, and its action 
would be the action of Presbytery. But what was done was 
well understood to be something that had to be reported at 
Presbytery, and that could not be regarded as settled until 
reported to and acted upon by the Presbytery. That is the 
work of a committee and not the work of a commission. 

Inasmuch, then, as it was understood that the conclusions 
reached had to be reported to Presbytery itself to be acted 
upon by that body before they could be conclusive and final, 
we must understand that it was the work of a committee. 

When we came together at that meeting of Presbytery, and 
Dr. George arose, and, not as a member of the Committee at 
all, but simply as a member of Presbytery, as any other member 
of Presbytery might have arisen, and offered his resolutions, 
for reasons which he gave you here to-day, I was a little bit 
startled. It was unexpected to me. I thought the basis of 



22S 



STENOGRAPHIC REPORT. 



agreement would be first reported and acted upon, and I did 
not hesitate in the Presbytery to say so. 

I mention this now to prove what differences of opinion 
there were on a point like this, and to show there could have 
been no agreement : that the members of the Committee could 
not have consulted together to put some kind of a rider upon 
the report. 

When brother George afterwards arose and gave his reasons, 
and when, after the meeting was over, I had talked the sub- 
ject over with him privately, I saw the full force of the con- 
siderations that he presented before you to-day, and I said, I 
did not think it would have made very much difference. For 
my own part, I do not see that it made a very great deal of 
difference. Different minds might look at it in different 
ways ; but I saw from the way he looked at it, the honest, 
straight forward, manly thing for him to do was, to bring 
those resolutions forward first, so that he might not lay him- 
self open to a charge to which he feared he might be open, 
if, after the basis had been acted upon, he would spring 
something that had never been mentioned before, in order to 
bring this to bear upon those who had already consented to a 
basis of reconciliation, and I honored him for introducing the 
resolutions into Presbytery at the very first of the meeting. 

I would have you remember in connection with this, too, 
that Presbytery never agreed upon any but one basis. The 
basis that was agreed upon in the Judicial Committee, and 
that was reported to Presbytery, was not accepted by the 
Presbytery. I need not enter into the reasons for it. You 
have had them given to you in a large measure already. But 
I want you to keep this one thing in mind, — Presbytery did 
not accept it. Presbytery went on to modify it. Presbytery 
did modify it, and then after modifying it, laid the basis upon 
the table. 

Petitions came in, especially a petition from the East End 
congregation. That petition was read. Presbytery was so 
touched by that petition, as it so earnestly sought that the 
pastor might be restored to the East End congregation, that 
they reconsidered their resolution, laying the basis of agree- 
ment upon the table, and took it up, and sought, if possible, 
to have a basis on which all could be harmonized; one that 
would do no injustice to the young men, and one that would 
not compromise the church and her principles; one that 
would hold the church true to her profession to her Lord and 
Master. And this was a matter on which Pittsburgh Presby- 
tery was determined from the very first. 

When such a basis had been framed to the satisfaction of 
Presbytery, just that one basis did the Presbytery submit. It 
never agreed to submit anything but that one basis. When it 
agreed upon what it was at last believed was final, it submit- 
ted that basis, and it was rejected. 



FRIDAY, JUNE 5. 



229 



The third point of complaint is the charge that the Minutes 
were not correct, that there is something erroneous in the 
Minutes, and that this error in the Minutes was not corrected. 
When a charge like that is made we ought to have the data. 
It is not enough just to say that the Minutes are wrong, and 
that an effort was made to correct them. Whenever we have 
a charge of that kind, let us understand just what the Minute 
is that is wrong. .Let us understand what was proposed as a 
correction of the Minute that ought to be made. 

]STow I do not know what reference we have here. I have 
thought the whole thing over as carefully as possible, and 
there is only one thing in all the records of Presbytery that 
comes to my mind. If there is anything else I should be very 
glad to consider it. But there is only one thing that comes 
to my mind, and I will narrate this in full before the members 
of this Court. The point was this. It was just at the very 
beginning of the sessions of the regular meeting of the Pres- • 
bytery in October. Professor Willson brought before the 
Presbytery a paper in the form of a libel, naming, if I remem- 
ber correctly, two persons. Is not that correct, Professor 
Willson? 

Prof. D. B. WILLSON: Yes, sir. 

Dr. McALLISTER : Naming two persons only, and giving 
the data as a basis bn which a libel might be properly fram- 
ed. This was referred to the Committee on Discipline. There 
was a good deal of discussion before the motion to refer this 
paper to the Committee on Discipline was carried. In the 
progress of that discussion it was charged again and again 
that this was a libel ; that Professor Willson had come before 
the Court as a prosecutor, and that he had put a libel in the 
hands of the Court against the persons that were named. The 
Moderator decided that it was not a libel; that it could not 
become a libel until it had been acted upon by the Court and 
had received the signatures of the Moderator and clerk of the 
Court; that when it had thus been duly signed, it would be- 
come Presbytery's paper, and would thus become a libel in 
due form. 

Rev. H. W. REED : This matter is not the correction of 
the Minutes to which I refer. I supposed that would be be- 
fore the Court, as Dr. McAllister said, and of course, I do not 
dispute his word at all. However, it is not the correction of 
the Minutes to which I referred in my remarks, 

Dr. McALLISTER: As I have begun this matter I will 
complete it, and if there is anything else, it ought to be 
brought forward specifically. I do not remember anything 
else ; and if there is anything, I go back to the remarks I have 
already made, that it is not enough to make a general and in- 
definite charge. The person, who does that, is simply going 
back upon what he has put into his own complaint as a 
ground of complaint of injustice and wrong against the Pres- 



230 



STEM O GRAPHIC REPORT. 



bytery, — that the Presbytery has made general and indefinite 
charges. Presbytery made no general nor indefinite charge; 
but when a person comes before this Court and makes this 
general and indefinite chage without specifying what it is 
that is wrong in the Minutes, he is simply opening up himself 
to the charges which he brings against others. But now I 
will finish the matter I commenced. 

As I began this narrative, I will complete it, and it will 
illustrate to some degree just how things were going on in 
Pittsburgh Presbytery. The Moderator, when it had been 
stated again and again that it was a libel, decided, and at last 
probably with a little bit of heat (for the Moderator of Pitts- 
burgh Presbytery does not profess to be a man who has a 
somewhat fiery temper always under the best control, and I 
think, in all probability he gave the decision at length with 
something of snap to it), that this was not a libel, that it was 
• a paper. An appeal was taken, as the Moderator understood 
it. However, it was explained afterwards that it was not an 
appeal from the Moderator calling this a paper, and not a 
libel, but it was an appeal from the Moderator's refusal to 
have it read. 

The Moderator claims here that he was acting according to 
his full privileges as Moderator. Turn to page 129. of our 
Rules, rule 43 : * 4 The reading of any paper, or part thereof, 
which is under consideration of the judicatory, must be re- 
peated at the request of any member unless objected to by the 
Moderator or any other member, in which case it will require 
a vote on regular motion, put without debate, to grant such 
request/' The Moderator did object, as he had the right to 
object. There was no vote put. lhere was no motion made 
to override the Moderator's objection, and consequently the 
Moderator simply did what the Book gives him full power 
and prerogative to do : to object to this kind of obstructive 
proceeding by calling for the readng of a paper when there 
was no necessity to have it read, as the Court fully and dis- 
tinctly understood just what it was. and were ready to have 
it referred to the Committee on Discipline. The next morn- 
ing when this Minute came up. objection was made that the 
Miaute was not correct, and the Moderator insisted that the 
Minute was simply according to the facts of the case, and the 
Court did not see fit to make any change in the Minute. The 
Minutes stood according to the facts. If there be any other 
case I would be glad to have it mentioned. 

Rev. E. M. MILLIGAN : Do you wish me to mention the 
case I referred to in my speech? 

Dr. MCALLISTER: You have your opportunity to do it. 

Rev. H. W. REED : That was not the case which I spe- 
cially mentioned 

Dr. McALLISTER : it was not specially mentioned. I will 
insist that he mention it when he has opportunity to speak. 



FRIDAY, JUNE 5. 



231 



Another of these charges is, dragging in matters not men- 
tioned in the libel, particularly the fact of an organization 
being formed. It is admitted in the Pastoral Letter, as it was 
admitted here before you by my brother, who also represents 
the Presbytery, that there was no uncertainty about the fact 
of an organization having been formed at the East End Meet- 
ing. For some time we all thought there was an organiza- 
tion. Then, from such considerations as were mentioned, we 
thought there was not an organization. We were in doubt; 
we did not know. When the Judicial Committee was in ses- 
sion, and we were just nearing, as we thought, the point 
when, after long conversations on the brief statements or 
declarations of the basis of agreement, we would come to an 
understanding that we would take those words just as they 
read, in their simple meaning, and that all would agree to 
that, one of the six who were before the Committee asked the 
privilege of going out for a private interview with one of the 
members of the Judicial Committee. 

Inasmuch as the sacred bond of privacy has been removed 
from that matter, and not by me, but by the person who asked 
for the privilege, I will tell you the whole story. It was the 
Rev. H. W. Temple. He asked that I might retire with him 
for a time from the Judicial Committee, as he had a matter 
on which he wished to consult me. I went with Mr. Temple 
into the room adjoining the room where the Committee were 
in session, and Mr. Temple told me that he had a matter he 
wished to communicate to me in confidence. He said, "You, 
I know, will not betray the confidence." I said, "Certainly 
not, Mr. Temple; whatever you communicate to me in con- 
fidence I shall keep, and not whisper a word of it to any 
one." He then proceeded to tell me what it was. 

He said, "[ have a difficulty about signing that agreement, 
or agreeing to it without signature. I have a difficulty, and 
it is this : The first declaration of that agreement reads : 'We 
hereby disavow the East End Platform as a bond of union 
within the Reformed Presbyterian church.' I don't see how 
I can consistently make such a disavowal." I asked him how 
that was. "Why," he said, "it would not be fidelity to those 
who are united with me in the organization. If i disavow 
that as a bond of union, others will accuse me of breach of 
faith." 

[ said to Mr. Temple on the spot, and immediately, in 
reply: "Mr. Temple, you know I am your friend; you know 
I always have been, and that I would not counsel you anything 
but what is right. [ counsel you to disavow it for that very 
reason. You ought to disavow it. The way you put it shows 
that it is an agreement, — shows that it is a bond of union be- 
tween you and others; and that is where you have committed 
a great wrong, — both you and the others, whoever they may 
be." And I did not ask him who they were. "You and the 



232 



STENOGRAPHIC REPORT. 



others, who have thus bound yourselves together, have done 
an incalculable injury to the Keformed Preslyterian church, 
I think it is your duty here and now to disavow it, and to use 
your influence to lead others to disavow it. If others accuse 
you of doing what is wrong, you insist they shall do the same 
thing." I am amplifying this a little, I dare say, but I am 
giving the substance. That is the counsel I gave Mr. Temple ; 
and then I added : "If I ever learn of this fact from any other 
source, so that it will not be a breach of confidence, I give 
you now fair warning that I shall use it against you ; I shall 
use it against you and against the others connected with you r 
because it is a* wrong thing." That is the first part of that 
story. 

Now all this was kept in entire confidence. I went back to 
the Committee as he went back. He was satisfied, as we 
learned afterwards, that what I advised him to do was right, 
for he told us afterwards he took my advice. The member* 
of Presbytery will recollect Mr. Temple's exact words; he 
said : "I took your advice." "Yes." I said at that time, "it 
would have been well for you, Mr. Temple, if you had taken 
my advice in other respects as well." But. taking my advice, 
he did disavow the Platform sincerely and honestly, as I be- 
lieve. He went back into the Commitee, had some conference 
with the others, and they agreed to that basis. 

When we came to the meeting of Presbytery and this mat- 
ter came up, Mr. Temple, as you heard, made a statement 
about much that was not just altogether in keeping with the 
agreement; how there had. been explanations, how there had 
been disinclination, holding back, and reservation. He him- 
self brought out the fact, that he had called out from the Ju- 
dicial Committee a certain member of it, and had told that 
member of the Committee that there was this permanent or- 
ganization effected at the East End Meeting. When he made 
that statement, I immediately arose to my feet and said. "Mr. 
Temple, that takes the seal from my lips." "Yes," he said, 
"it takes it away altogether: you are at liberty to tell every- 
thing that occurred in our interview." 

There, then, is the way this seal of secrecy, and this bond 
of confidence has come to be removed. And. there is the first 
testimony as to the organization. Then came other testi- 
mony, i think it was not, however, as my brother said, at 
that same meeting. It may be a mistake on his part or on 
mine. I am not sure whether the Minutes will show which 
is correct, but the members of Presbytery will, no doubt, re- 
collect. It is not a material point, but it is this. It was after 
the suspension had been inflicted in the case of a number of 
these ministers, and there was some inquiry as to whether 
they had observed the suspension or not. Tf my recollection 
is correct, it was then that Mr. E. M. Milligan arose in Pres- 
bytery (or he was standing, as I recollect it, over by the win- 



FRIDAY, JLNE 5. 



233 



dow to the Moderator's right hand), when it was asked 
whether he had observed the sentence of the Court, some- 
thing was said with regard to the Meeting (I- am not sure 
whether then or at some other time, I am only giving my 
recollection), and I recollect distinctly he said he had seen 
the Minutes of the Meeting, and that there had been an or- 
ganization effected. 

Dr. GEORGE : If I made any statement as to the time that 
occurred. I withdraw it. 

Dr. McALLISTEE : I may not be correct. 

Dr. GEOKGE : You are correct. 

Dr. MCALLISTER : I am not sure. 

Dr. GEORGE : I am sure. It was with reference to the 
second trial, the trial of J. R. J. Milligan. 

Dr. MCALLISTER : Whether Dr. George is correct or I 
am correct matters very little. There is the fact. I think it 
was stated in connection with or at the time reference was- 
made to the affidavit. My recollection is, it was in the pro- 
cess of the trial of J. R. J. Milligan, and he was standing 
making his defence. He put his hand into the side pocket,, 
or breast pocket, of his coat, and said: "-I have here an affi- 
davit from the Rev. J. F. Carson, of the city of Brooklyn, de- 
claring under oath that there was no organization effected at 
the East End Meeting." 

!N"o wonder, if our minds were confused. Here the Secre- 
tary of that Meeting had first told me in confidence that there 
was a permanent organization, charging me not to reveal the 
fact, and I obligating myself that I would not say anything 
about it. That is the first thing. 

The second thing : he comes out, when it would weaken 
the force of this agreement, and acknowledges in open court 
that he had called me out and told me that there had been a 
permanent organization effected. 

Then, in the third place, this brother, standing on the floor 
of Presbytery, said that he had recently seen the Minutes 
kept by the clerk, which were in the hands of the clerk, and 
that there had been an organization effected. Yet, at the 
same time, here was one man on trial, saying that he had an 
affidavit in his pocket, — which he did not lay before the 
Court. — saying that he had the affidavit of the President of 
the Meeting, that there was no permanent organization, no 
organization at all, effected. It is no wonder the Moderator 
said just then that it would be in order at this time to have 
the Minutes of that Meetirg and the affidavit laid upon Pres- 
bytery's table. I do not know whether the affidavit was in 
the form of a telegram or in the form a letter; but it was then 
in the possession of Mr. J. R. J. Milligan, according to his- 
own statement, lor he had taken it out of his pocket, if I rec- 
ollect rightly, and had it in his hand. But that affidavit and 
those Minutes were not laid upon the table of Presbytery, as 



234 



STENOGRAPHIC REPORT. 



they should have been, in a case of this kind, when it was so 
important to know iust what the facts were. 

Now, my dear Brethren, I wish you, in connection with 
this matter, to look at what we have in our own Book of Dis- 
cipline. We have this: "No private knowledge," possessed 
by members of the judicatory, shall be suffered to inlluence 
the decision, as that must be based entirely upon the evidence 
before the Court; but it is the duty of every member of a 
judicatory to make known to the Court, as a witness, every- 
thing he may know that is relevant to the case before it, or 
rnav tend to a righteous decision." 

Mr. D. TORRENS: What page? 

Dr. McALLIiSTER: Page 78. paragraph 29. Under this 
rule it is the duty of every member of this Court to-day, who 
has any knowledge bearing upon these cases, to bring the 
tacts that he knows before this Court. If there be any mem- 
ber here that knows anything about a letter, any letter. — if 
there be anybody here who knows anything about the facts 
in this case, known to be facts, — under the constitutional 
law of the church he is bound to bring those facts before this 
•Court. 

What it is the duty of members of this Court now to do in a 
<case that concerns the welfare of Zion and the glory of her 
King. — in a case that concerns the spiritual welfare of those 
who are before this Court as under discipline, — is a matter 
that pertains to their own soul's eternal salvation. Any mem- 
ber of this Court who fails to bring what he knows before this 
•Court, will have his responsibility before the judgment bar in 
the great day of final accounts. 

What is true here to-day was true then at the meeting of 
Pittsburgh Presbytery. These same things ought to be put 
upon Synod's table to-day. That affidavit should be put upon 
this table; those Minutes should be put upon this table. 
They ought to have been put upon the table of Presbyter3 r . 
They were not. Presbytery in its leniency did not demand 
that they should be. Synod in its leniency may not demand 
that they shall be. But the moral obligation remains the 
same. It was a moral obligation at the meeting of Presby- 
tery, and it is a moral obligation in this meeting of Synod. 

Now in this connection I must not overlook one little item 
with regard to this organization. My brother has called at- 
tention to the nature of the Platform, and what the Pl.-itform 
was in the heading of it and in the statement of it ; it might 
be added, in the very manner of printing it. I believe mem- 
bers of the Court have seen copies. I am sorry that there is 
not a copy of the original edition here, but I will not insist 
upon that. Some may have such a copy. 

When this matter was brought before Presbytery at the 
meeting to which I have referred, Mr. Temple spoke of his 
heing clerk, and of the effort that was made to secure signa- 



FRIDAY, JUNE 5. 



235 



tures, sending this Platform around through the church to 
obtain them. 

Why, what kind of a meeting would that be? Would you 
call that nothing but a piwate meeting? Just a few persons 
coming together for a little conference and then disbanding 
and nothing more of it? But in this case a platform is printed, 
-a platform is circulated. 

(At this point a paper was handed to Dr. McAllister.) 

This is not the" original paper; this is not what I want. 
What I wanted is the original paper which I saw, and which 
I do not happen to have a copy of, as it was originally printed. 
But I do not dwell upon that particularly, except in this. It 
was brought out in Mr. Temple's statement on the floor of 
Presbytery that the object was to get names, to make a kind 
of enrollment of the friends of Christian union, on the basis 
of this Platform. That was the idea. Now is not that an or- 
ganizatijn? Is not that intended to be an organization? 

I do not hesitate to say, Mr. Moderator and members of this 
Synod, that had it not been for the fidelity of the elders of 
Pittsburgh Presbytery, as they called that meeting: as they 
felt that a time of crisis was upon the church; as they saw 
that the very foundations were being upheaved, and we were 
in danger of having developed an imperium in imperio^—VaaX 
is a government within a government, an organization within 
an organization; — it was not until the elders, realizing that if 
it were left to run its course, it would topple our beloved Zion 
into the dust, raised the cry and called the faithful elders to- 
gether in the city of Allegheny; and that put a stop to what 
would have developed into a permanent organization of these 
4 'friends of Christian union." Had it not been for that work, 
we would have had this organization to-day. 

In saying this I am simply giving my judgment, not upon 
facts, for they have not developed into facts, but upon what 
would have developed into facts, — repeated meetings of that 
organization, carrying on the same work, — had not the alarm 
beep, raised, and a barrier been reared, and fortifications set 
up. And let me say to the gentleman who has been talking 
about how fortifications have been battered down one after 
another, that the fortifications of the Elders' Convention have 
not yet been battered down; the fortifications that have been 
raised by the faithful Covenanters of our country for the 
maintenance of the integrity and life of our beloved Zion. 

Complaint has been made also of injustice and wrong be- 
cause reasons were given by members of Presbytery when 
votings — reasons outside of what is found in the libel. There 
is one that is particularly mentioned, and that is what was 
said about a secret society. 

I am goiug to give you in all frankness, my dear Fathers 
and Brethren, just exactly the impression that was made upon 
my mind by these developments. If I have ever seen the 



236 



STENOGRAPHIC REPORT. 



workings of what was practically a secret association (I have 
never come much in contact with Free Masons, or Odd Fel- 
lows, but I have come into pretty close contact with the 
workings of the organization effected at the East End Meet- 
ing, and I have to say in reference to that), the essential 
evils of a secret society were there. 

Do you ask in what way? Well, take the case I have al- 
ready referred to. Why should a man at a meeting of the 
Judicial Committee, or in any court, feel himself under con- 
straint because of a bond that he had. entered into that would 
stand in the way of his free, manly discharge of his duty in 
that Committee? 

I am thankful to God, my Saviour, that in a comparatively 
long life as a member of this church Court I have never come 
to a meeting of Synod trammeled by any contract, or agree- 
ment, with any brother ; and I would have regarded myself 
as being untrue to my Master had I thus trammeled myself. 

There were controversies in our church in days gone by, 
when some noble men that have gone to their rest, stood side 
by side in great issues. There is the picture of one of them. 
(Rev. A. M, Milligan.) Side by side with him was Dr. Sloane. 
I do not say that it is wrong for men to meet in friendly con- 
ference to speak about what they think. I believe that 1 at- 
tended one such meeting in my life, not a secret meeting, but 
a meeting of a few friends, when we conferred on what we 
thought would be a wise measure in reference to a church 
court. 

That, however, is a different thing from this kind of secret 
conclave, — holding men together in bonds that do not leave 
them free to carry out their own conscientious convictions. 
Talk about liberty in the Lord, and about freedom of consci- 
ence in the Lord. When men enter into agreements that thus 
keep them within bonds of restraint, they make themselves 
slaves, — and worse than slaves in physical bondage,— when 
they dare not say what they think is right, nor do what they 
think is right, without consulting with others with whom 
they have entered into some kind of engagements. 

Now I maintain that we have here repeated illustrations of 
this. At the meeting of Presbytery, when a proposition was 
made, there wasn't a man of the six who could stand up (no, 
let me say seven, who could stand up), and on the basis of his 
own manhood and Christian character, in the fear of his God 
and in loyalty to his Saviour, and with regard to the majesty 
of the divine law, say for himself what he would accept, or 
what he would not accept from Presbytery. But there had 
to be a consultation and conference together, that the whole 
company might hold together, so that one would not be found 
accepting something that others would not be willing to ac- 
cept. Is not that the very element of a secret association? 



FRIDAY. JUNE 5. 



237 



I told you I would read some Scriptures in connection with 
these matters. Let me ask you to turn to Ephesians. 5th 
chapter. 11th verse: "And have no fellowship with the un- 
fruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them. For it is 
a shame even to speak of those things which are done of them 
in secret." You may say that may refer to some of the vile 
abominations under the old pagan worship. But there may 
be what is just as much in opposition to divine law where 
there may be none of the abominations of idolatry, but when 
men may be made slaves in their souls. --But all things that 
are reproved are made manifest by the light: for whatsoever 
doth make manifest is light." 

Xow. Mr. Moderator. I wish to stand upon this basis, that 
until the Minutes of that East End organization are put upon 
the table of this Synod, and until the telegram signed by the 
President of that association is put here in the full light 

Eev. J. F. CAESOX: I never sent a telegram. 

Dr. MCALLISTER : Or letter, or whatever it was. let it be 
what it was. 

Eev. J. F. CAESOX: These are false statements that are 
beino: made. 

Dr. MCALLISTER : If it was not a telegram, will he tell us 
what it was? 

Eev. J. F. CAESOX: It was an affidavit, and I could ex- 
plain that very fully. 

Dr. MCALLISTER : I still hold to my assertion, until that 
affidavit, and until the Minutes of the East End Meeting are 
put in open daylight before this Court, for all the members of 
the Court to see. and know what was done. I will say that 
these are the products of the secret works of darkness, with 
which we are commanded to have no fellowship, but rather 
to reprove them. 

There are two kinds of administrative government. I have 
had consderable experience with one kind, and that is what 
might be called College government, which is the discipline 
or care of College boys. " That kind of discipline or govern- 
ment is about "of this style. I suppose most of you know 
something of it. and I need not enter very fully into parti- 
culars, but it is about like this. There is some mischief done. 
The President of the College and the faculty are greatly dis- 
tressed. The mischief has been done. That is a fact." But 
who did it? There may be pretty strong suspicion that such 
a student, or such another one. had a hand in it. There is no 
very clear evidence, however, with regard to the matter. 
Perhaps a number of boys are called up before the College 
faculty, aad there is inquiry made in regard to this mystery. 
Unless there be something in the way of positive evidence 
that can be brought up, "the faculty will be laughed at as 
making a great ado about something of which they can't get 
any definite knowledge. 



238 



STENOGRAPHIC REPORT. 



I must say that I never did believe in College in asking a 
student to criminate anybody else, either by having him say 
that such a person had a hand in such a thing, or if you had 
a half dozen before you, among whom you are sure you have 
hold of one of the culprits, you ask A, "Did you do it?" and 
he says, ''No; 1 ' and you ask B, "Did you do it?" and he says r 
"No;" and you go on until you corner the man who did it I 
do not believe in that. That is all proper enough in the 
family where the father will ascertain just what is being 
done. I would not ask that that should be done in College. 
And I must say here that I fear sometimes that habits that 
may be formed in looking at moral questions in College life, 
may sometimes follow men in after years as a penalt}^. 

When we come into the church of the living God we come 
where it is the duty of every man to offer himself in complete 
consecration. Brethren, what have we just been considering 
here in our session? What was the subject of our devotion 
this afternoon? "Entire, unreserved consecration of ministers, 
elders and people to the service of our Lord and Saviour 
Jesus Christ." It is according to this principle that our Book 
of Discipline goes when it says that if any man knows any- 
thing, he shall not, like a College student, who can only be 
made to say that he did such a thing when the evidence is 
brought overhelmingly down upon him, and he cannot escape 
conviction; — it is not for the members of the church of Christ 
to put themselves in that attitude; but they are bound, as 
members of the church of Christ, concerning the rights of 
their brethren in Christ, concerning any cause wherein in- 
justice may be done to Presbytery, or injustice may be done 
to a member of Presbytery, or where the cause of Christ may 
suffer; they are called upon, as those that are free men in 
Christ Jesus, to lay the whole matter before the church of 
God and the Court of the Head of the church. And if there 
be any wrong that has been done, the principle that was 
stated by Joshua to Achan holds true, — "My son, confess and 
give God the glory;" that is, the glory of laying the whole 
life before the Court of the Omniscient One with whom we 
have to do. 

. I now pass to the next point. It is charged that members 
of the Court prejudged the case. Why? Didn't they hear the 
testimony? Didn't they hear the testimony at the first meeting 
of Presbytery? There were witnesses then, and they were 
judges then; not, it is true, already upon their full responsi- 
bility as judges, but, they were the same persons, and as 
members of the Court they heard the testimony, and they 
could not resist the operation of their minds, and the logical 
conclusion to which they were forced by what they heard was 
that certain men were guilty of pursuing divisive courses. 
And 1 do not wonder that one elder broke out, (although I 
think it was injudicious for him to do it,) and said, "I am al- 



FRIDAY, JUNE 5. 



239> 



ready prepared to vote." Every member of that Presbytery 
would have been prepared to vote without hearing a word in 
the way of defence. They could have been brought to a vote 
without any formal trial, inasmuch as the charges were there,, 
and the subsumption was there, according to the old Scottish 
term, and the probation complete. The witness had given 
the testimony. The Court itself was the witness, and the 
testimony was all in. The Court was ready to pass its judg- 
ment, and it was" no prejudging of the case. 

But what shall we say with regard to this kind of a charge r 
when the very men that were alike in the scandal, participa- 
tors in it, had no hesitation to sit and deliberate and vote on 
what was substantially their own case? What kind of pre- 
judgment of the case was that, when two members of that 
Court were then sitting in judgment on the five who were 
under trial for the very causes and very scandal with which 
they were afterward charged? What kind of prejudgment of 
the case was that, when those two men sat and deliberated, 
and voted on what must have. been the prejudgment of their 
own case, and rendered the verdict, which they would desire 
to have given in their own case, upon those with whom they 
were equally guilty? 

Mr. D. TORRENS : I hope the Doctor will explain that. I 
for one don't understand what the reference is. 

Dr. MCALLISTER : I will explain it in detail. There were 
five persons who were libelled at the first regular meeting of 
Presbytery. No, they were not libelled; but steps were taken 
with regard to the seven. 

The first meeting of Presbytery was in October. The mat- 
ter came before that Presbytery originally through these 
memorials, and seven persons were mentioned. These seven 
persons, as the Minutes say. at that meeting all acknowledged 
that they had been at the East End Meeting, and that they 
supported the East End Platform. That was the evidence. 
Efforts were made through the Judicial Committee, which 
held its meeting on the 22nd of October, to bring about a rec- 
onciliation ; they agreed upon a basis, and it was reported to 
the next meeting of Presbytery, which was held early in 
November. At that meeting in November, two of these 
seven were absent ; and the effort at reconciliation with the 
other five having failed, the trial began. That is, the citations 
and libels and so on were agreed upon, or rather it was left 
with the Judicial Committee, and they were ordered to make 
the preliminary arrangements. 

Then Presbytery came together in December when this 
trial of the five was conducted, and at that trial of the five in 
December the two who had been present in October, but had 
not been present in November, were then present and sat and 
deliberated and voted with regard to the verdict in the case? 
of the five with whom they had been associated. 



240 



STENOGRAPHIC REPORT. 



The next point to which I ask your attention, is with regard 
to the conduct of members during the trial. 

Complaint ha-s been made of injustice and wrong because of 
the conduct of members of the Court. I am very frank, dear 
Fathers and Brethren, in making acknowledgment that 1 did 
catch myself nodding, though I was Moderator. I might give 
you some extenuating circumstances. It has been nry very 
great misfortune in life to have burning conflicts put upon 
me. I do not know how it is, but if there is to be anything in 
the way of a struggle, I have some way or other always had 
my share in it. And burdened as I was when I sat there 
listening to those long addresses, I did find myself so over- 
come that occasionally I would lose for a little my conscious- 
ness, and I would catch myself nodding, and make an effort 
and rouse up and pay attention. I suppose that is one of the 
things specially referred to. I am sorry for the weakness. I 
did strive against it. I got hold of my leg and pinched it 
until it was black and blue, trying to keep myself awake. I 
did all that was in my power, and I am ready to be censured 
with whatever degree of censure may be thought just to be 
inflicted upon me. 

There may be some other things of that character. But 1 
stand here before you to say that I never witnessed such suc- 
cessive, long continued meetings of any Court where there 
was so much forbearance and patience. One reason was I 
was not on the floor. The Presbytery had the good sense to 
put me in the chair where it kept me a little bit more quiet 
than I would otherwise have been, and so there was not so 
much striking of fire, I dare say for that reason. It was 
calm. Everything was conducted with a great deal of order, 
and there was every manifestation of the hearts of ministers 
and elders being touched with the deepest sorrow. That was 
the one side. 

I appeal to the many witnesses who were present, if it be 
not true that the persons that were under accusation were 
often gathered together in a group laughing. They were 
often treating with lightness and flippancy the most sacred 
and serious things. I ask if they did not gather around one, 
not now with us, who seemed to be a leader, and who took 
part with them in this kind of conduct that was so frivolous 
and so utterly unworthy of men that were standing to answer 
before a court of the Lord's house. 

I am ready to make the appeal to all of candid mind who 
were present during those trials, and ask what the facts are in 
reference to the conduct of members of the Court on the one 
hand, and the conduct of those on trial on the other. And I 
know that the verdict of every fair-minded one will be that 
while on the one hand, even as the reporters themselves, with 
all the prejudices that they so naturally have in favor of the 
young men, who seemed to stand on the side of "Young 



FRIDAY, JUNE 5. 



241 



America,*' —notwithstanding all these prejudices, the repor- 
ters themselves gave testimony that on the part of the Pres- 
bytery it was "in sorrow and in tears," whereas the others 
seemed to think but very little of it, and their trouble sat 
very lightly upon them. I leave it with that statement for 
the members of this Court to consider. 

ISTow I pass on, Mr. Moderator, to the consideration of the 
particular case of Mr. Milligan. Mr. Milligan has given 
utterance to his strong desire that this case should be treated 
separately. I do not wonder at that. 

A MEMBER: Which Milligan? 

Dr. MCALLISTER: Mr. J. R. J. Milligan. He has ex- 
pressed a strong desire that his case should be treated sepa- 
rately from the cases of the others, and I do not wonder at it. 
I do not wonder that he does not want to be held responsible 
for utterances made on the floor of Presbytery, and utterances 
made oft the floor of this Synod,— utterances which I believe 
to be in direct antagonism to the Bible principles of the Cov- 
enanter church. 

Let us see with regard to this case of Mr. Millio-an., He 
makes a demaDd that his case should be treated differently, 
inasmuch as he never rejected the basis that was prepared by 
the Judicial Committee. That is true. As we have already 
seen, Mr. Milligan was not at the second meeting of Presby- 
tery when the Judical Committee reported that basis. Con- 
sequently he had no part in that refusal to accept the basis. 
But I think that while this is admitted, yet Mr. Milligan has 
no right to claim that a basis which was prepared by a Com- 
mitte, and by that Committee reported to Presbytery to be 
acted upon by Presbytery, should be binding finally upon the 
Presbytery. 

I am willing to concede all that has been said; and I am 
very frank to concede my own mistake in what is, I suppose, 
quite characteristic of myself; that I w r as so rejoiced when 
we did reach that decison in the Committee, that although, as 
I have told you, I never thought for a moment of it being 
anything but a committee, — while I did not suppose that it 
was a final settlement, and knew it could not be that, as it was 
only one we could report to Presbytery as a committee ; yet I 
felt sure. — particularly after my interview with Mr. Temple, 
about which I couldn't say anything to anybody else; I could 
not speak to the other members of the Committee about it,— 
1 felt sure it would be accepted. He had given me such as- 
surance that he sincerely accepted my advice, and that he 
did sincerely disavow the East End Platform as a bond of 
union, and was ready to stand by every principle of that basis 
of agreement, that when at length they did agree to it, as 
they have said, and one of them said that he had grown to 
that point that he would regard requiring him to put his 
name or signature to what he had given his word to, as some- 



242 



STENOGRAPHIC REPORT. 



thing altogether against his honor; and I took it in that way 
also, that when the word was given, it was just as sacred and 
just as binding as if the pen had been taken in hand and the 
name written out in subscription to that agreement; there- 
fore, when we all settled down, as I thought we did with 
honest purpose, I jumped up in my impulsiveness, the first 
one, which I couldn't have thought of doing if it had been a 
commission, and I gave my hand to the man nearest me. and 
I went around with pleasant remarks, making it just as pleas- 
ant as I could, thinking the matter had come to a final settle- 
ment. 

That is the fact ; but that does not change this additional 
fact, that it was only an agreement by a committee to be re- 
ported to a court for that court to act upon; and when that 
court did take it into consideration and act upon it, and made 
it the agreement that was satisfactory to the Court (and it 
was the Court that needed to be satisfied), it was not for any 
one of these men, — it was not for the Rev. J. R. J. Milligan 
any more than it was.for any of the other of the five or six, — 
to write down a basis and say, "Here is something I demand 
as a basis of agreement." It was for the Court to formulate 
a basis that would be satisfactory to itself, and to offer that 
basis, and if the basis were accepted, well and good ; if it 
were not accepted, then the Court was not to blame. So that 
Mr. Milligan had no right to look for this basis being binding 
in his case any more than it should be binding in the case of 
any other. It was for him to take the basis that the Court in 
its wisdom would agree to offer, and accept of it; if he could 
not accept of it, consistently with his honor, then. I think, 
the one thing for him to do would be to say that he could not 
remain in connection with a church where he would find 
himself so utterly at variance with one of her chief inferior 
judicatories. 

Again, in connection with this matter, Mr. Milligan wishes 
to be separated entirely from the others ; but his connection 
with them is such that that separation cannot take place. If 
he desired to be separated from them, why did he not sepa- 
rate from them in conduct? If he desired a separation, it was 
possible for him to have the separation. He could have had 
the separation any time he wished it by his own act, — by 
standing out in the free manhood of entire independence and 
saying, "I will not allow any agreement with other men to 
control me ; I am not going to consult with them as to what 
I shall do, as to what shall be the course of action to be taken 
here; but I will say, in the presence of the Judicial Commit- 
tee or before the Presbytery, what I think is right, and I will 
decide for myself ." That it was possible for him to do, and 
that is what he ought to have done early in the proceedings 
of Pittsburgh Presbytery. 

As to his objection to certain members of Presbytery voting 



FRIDAY, JUNE 5. 



243 



in his case, I will just make the point I made a little while 
ago against him. I do not see how he can consistently object 
to any elder voting in his case. He says that some of the 
elders, who voted in his case, were not at that original meet- 
ing in October. Admit that they were not there. Yet I want 
to bring this fact before you, — they had the full testimony of 
the case before them, just as truly as if they had been there. 
If they had been at the meeting in October, what would they 
have heard? They would have heard Mr. Milligan and the 
others admit their adherence to the East End Platform. 
They had the testimony before them that such avowal was 
made. 

Mr. Milligan never disputed or denied the fact. There 
never was any occasion to ask him in reference to the facts. 
So that the testimony was in in its completeness; the charge 
made, the specifications before the Court, and the witness 
given at that meeting in October, and the witness also prac- 
tically given at the meeting in December, because even then, 
when the question of the admissibility of the charges, and of 
the relevancy of the charges, came up, Mr. Milligan did not 
for one moment deny the fact, nor did he for one moment 
deny that the Court was in possession of the evidence of the 
fact. So that these members of the Court had the full record 
of the case with the testimony before them when they pro- 
ceeded to vote. 

But in reference to Mr. Milligan himself, I may still bring 
up the charge I brought up a little time ago, — that he him- 
self, together with Mr. McClurkin, had no hesitation in voting 
on the other cases ; so that it is hardly in place for one who 
was ready to vote under such circumstances himself, to bring 
a charge of injustice and wrong against others voting when 
they could not be so prejudiced in the case ; when they must 
have been far Ireer in their minds to give a righteous verdict, 
then he possibly could have been. 

But there is still another thing to be noted in reference to 
Mr. Milligan's case, to show that he cannot claim this entire 
separation, and that is his inconsistency. I am very sorry to 
have to speak of this, but it is a fact that needs to be brought 
out. 

At the meeting of Synod in 1889, Mr. Milligan voted against 
the resolution of Synod which approved of voting on the part 
of our members on Constitutional Amendments. It was dis- 
tinctly understood by a great many, — I do not know whether 
they were mistaken or not, but at all events it was the feeling 
in the minds of a great many in Pittsburgh and Allegheny, as 
well as elsewhere, that he voted against that resolution be- 
cause he thought it was a sin to vote for a prohibitory amend- 
ment. 

Now that this was just, I may offer this evidence. In his 
own defence he has repeatedly said that he holds to this old 



244 



STENOGRAPHIC REPORT. 



position of the church,— that it is a sin which no Christian 
man should be found guilty of. to vote for an officer to ad- 
minister the government. He also contends that it is equally 
a sin for anv Christian man to vote for a prohibitory amend- 
ment. Voting for prohibiten amendments and voting for 
officers to administer the government, he holds, are both ex- 
actly the same sinful act. 

That is what he. has argued before this Presbytery again 
and again. And yet the fact is that he came home from the 
meeting in Belle Centre in 1889. and when the election in this 
State came off on the prohibitory amendment. Mr. Milligan 
went to the polls and voted for it. Now what is the consis- 
tency of an act of that kind? Going deliberately to the polls 
and casting his ballot in a matter which, according to his own 
argument, was a sin. — an act that no Christian man could 
consistently perform ! That is one inconsistency, to begin with. 

Again, in connection with that is this to be noted : The 
close connection of Mr. Milligan with that one who was al- 
ways recognized as a leader. The special intimacy between 
Mr. Milligan and the one who seemed to be manufacturing 
ammunition for the young men at the meeting of Presbytery : 
who was constantly in consultation with them :' who was sitting 
in the corner laughing with them : and who seemed to be rind- 
ing no little sport, and a good deal of a quiet kind of enjoy- 
ment, to say the least, in the proceedings that were going on. 

It is no secret that that gentleman takes the view, sincerely 
and avowedly, that the position of the Covenanter church is 
unscriptural ; that she has. by distinctions which are alto- 
gether delusive, put herself on the ground of political dis- 
sent; and he has, consistent!}' with "that view, though at a 
somewhat late day. retired to another place where he will 
find himself more in harmbny with his surroundings. 

It was inconsistent in this brother, while he would stand on 
the ground that he held to every principle of the church, to 
the Scriptural position of political dissent.- while he held it 
w r as a sin either to vote for an officer to administer the 
government or for a prohibitory amendment to a State con- 
stitution, — it was inconsistent for him ihus to be in such con- 
stant intercourse and communication, as if in agreement, with 
one that was known to be in antagonism to the position of the 
church. 

And this is another thing that has brought this member 
into this kind of connection which makes it impossible for a 
separation now to take place. He is so linked together in 
this kind of an organization with those who put themselves 
on a different ground from that held by the Keformed Pres- 
byterian church, and by acts that are inconsistent with each 
other, that he is thus placed where we cannot separate him 
righteously and justly from the others with whom he has been 
associated. 



FKIDAY, JUNE 5. 



245 



• But I have not done with this altogether. There was a 
knowledge of facts (and this I have referred to in another 
connection) with regard to this proclamation after there had 
been an engagement that all would be kept quiet; that is, an 
engagement between the members of the Judicial Committee 
and these young brethren who had met with them, and who 
had entered into that agreement, that nothing would be said 
about that basis. 

As you have already heard, immediately afterward there 
was the proclamation of a great victory for the young men. 
The tidings that appeared in the newspapers; the tidings that 
went to the Banner in the city of Xew York, going so partic- 
ularly, as you have heard, that, although the magazine had 
already gone to press, yet a place was found on the cover for 
substantially the same statements that appeared in the Pitts- 
burgh papers. And so there was Mr. Milligan's participation 
in this in so far as he never disavowed it: in so far as he did 
not come out. as he had the opportunity to come out, and 
separate himself from that, which he never did. 

That this was a kind of a triumph there is no need of at- 
tempting to cover up. What has come before you already is 
in perfect harmony with what I have read somewhere of cer- 
tain self-complacent would-be young Xapoleons, who are re- 
ported to have said, that they had met the enemy at Gettys- 
burg, and put tbem to the run as Meade had put the rebels to 
the run. and that the only trouble was. th^y didn't follow up 
the victory: that there ought to have been a following up of 
the victory: and that some person had declared of another in 
this matter (and I am not locating it at all) that he fairly 
roared at the way in which suchVoung fellows brought ec- 
clesiastical magnates to their knees in the presence of the boys. 

Where there" is knowledge of anything like that; where 
there are any such facts as these, and knowledge of the facts, 
there cannot be the separation of one man from the company 
with which he has been associated. 

I come now to Mr. McClurkin's case. In Mr. McClurkin's 
case there was the denial of the admissibility of the libel. I 
need not repeat all that we have here, both in the declinature 
and in the complaint. You have heard them read. He does 
not take exception to any of those points just noted. Let me 
give you what he does say. as it will be better to have it be- 
fore you: -T complain against the action of Pittsburgh Pres- 
bytery in admitting the libel against me for the following 
reasons : First. Such action is illegal. A libel, in order to be 
legal, must contain the witnesses to substantiate the testi- 
mony. The libel contains the names of no witnesses what- 
ever.*" 

I have shown that this libel did not need the names of wit- 
nesses, as the Presbytery itself was the witness, and the testi- 
mony was in and complete. But he continues: -'Second. 



246 



STENOGRAPHIC REPORT. 



Such action is unjust. Such piocedure would subject any 
member of the Court to process and discipline without any 
regard to the truthfulness of the accusation. Third. The 
libel itself contains false testimony. It offers as testimony 
the assertion that on October 15th, 1890, T made statements 
which I did not make." 

Mr. McClurkin ought to have told us, that in connection 
with the consideration of the admissibility of the libel, he 
said nothing about that; nothing until he came to the con- 
sideration of the relevancy of the libel. And here I wish to 
give you a full statement, as nearly as I can, of all the facts 
in the case. 

It was at the morning session. There had been the same 
course of procedure as in Mr. J. R. J. Milligan's case. There 
was an objection because the Moderator would not record his 
decision about the relevancy of the libel. There was the 
same line of argument with regard to the relevancy of the 
libel, and the Moderator decided in this case just exactly as 
he decided in the case of Rev. J. R. J. Milligan, as he had 
satisfied himself fully that he was right; that he had followed 
the law strictly in the former case, and he would follow in 
exactly the same line in the present case. 

It came to the point where the question of relevancy arose. 
At that point Mr. McClurkin, in the remarks that he made, 
declared that the testimony was false, and said that there 
were persons present who would on oath confirm his state- 
ments. Now mark, he did not say that he denied the facts. 
He did not say, '*I deny that I was at the East End Meeting." 
He did not say, u I deny that I approve of the East End Meet- 
ing." But he said, "I deny that this Court is in possession of 
the evidence." 

Just at that point Mr. McClurkin said, "I cannot look for a 
fair trial where anything like this is being done, and [ there- 
fore decline the authority of the Court." As Moderator I said 
to him, "Mr. McClurkin, do you understand all that is in- 
volved in that? Let me explain to you. That declinature 
must be handed in in writing. There can be no declinature 
until it is written. You must write it out. Bear in mind, 
again, that if you present this declinature with your written 
reasons, it will come before Synod, and you will have to be 
tried on that declinature, and if that is not sustained, your 
case falls through. You will have to be tried before Synod 
on the reasons which you give for declining the authority of 
the Court." 

That is what we should have done, as I stated in my intro- 
ductory remarks, if we had held strictly to the law and order 
of the church; and Mr. McClurkin would have been tried 
here first on that declinature. We, however, waived that, 
dimply because we did not want the slightest idea in any 
mind that there was any effort to suppress anything. We 



FRIDAY, JUNE 5. 



247 



wanted everything to come up. We wanted to waive all these 
formalities of law, and let them have full opportunity to say 
all that they could say, and that opportunity has been given. 

It was almost twelve o'clock when Mr. McClurkin gave that 
notice of declinature. When the Moderator told him he must 
write it out, he sat down and began to write it out. He sat 
for a little while. We spoke about going on with other busi- 
ness. He said it would take him some time to put it in shape. 
One member of the Court, I don't remember who, moved that 
we take a recess about twenty minutes or a quarter of an hour 
before the time. We took a recess, and during the recess that 
declinature was written out. 

When we came together after recess, I immediately opened 
the Book of Discipline, where we have the rule that is laid 
down for action in all such cases. Mr. McClurkin was stand- 
ing ready to read his declinature. He had made statements, 
as I told you, denying the possession by the Court of evidence. 

I will read to you the direction of our Book of Discipline 
which I immediately carried into effect, and which is found 
on page 75: "If on careful consideration the charges be 
found not relevant, all further proceedings must terminate; 
but if they are sustained as relevant, the accused is to be in- 
terrogated as to the matters of fact. If he admit them, the 
way is open for a decision." 

As I explained, in the other cases these interrogatories were 
not put, because there was no need of them; every one of the 
other six had acknowledged the facts. Here was the first one 
who refused to acknowledge them, and who denied that the 
Court was in possession of them. Inasmuch, then, as he en- 
tered his denial that the Court was in possession of evidence, 
I followed the rule which we have here, — "'The accused is to 
be interrogated as to the matters of fact." 

So I addressed the accused and said, "Mr. McClurkin, the 
others have acknowledged the facts of being at the East End 
Meeting, and of approving of its Platform. You do not. You 
say, we have not the evidence." Now we believed that we had. 
And I will bring before you the evidence that we had. But 
when he denied it, 1 put the interrogatory, "Were you, or 
were you not, at the East End Meeting?" 

This was evidently utterly unexpected, not only by the one 
who was interrogated, but by his advisors, especially by the 
■chief advisor, who manifested utter surprise. There was con- 
fusion. The face got red, and there was a good deal of hesi- 
tation, and hemming and hawing, and an attempt to say 
something else; but I simply pressed the matter: "As Mo- 
derator I insist upon an answer: Were you. or were you not 
present, at the East End Meeting?" Still there was hesita- 
tion, and again I pressed that either by "Yes" or by "]S"o" he 
must answer the question; and then he said, "I decline to 
answer." 



248 



STENOGRAPHIC REPORT. 



If there had not already been notice of declinature, that 
would have been the point for the Presbytery to have sus- 
pended for contumacy, right then and there. The Presbytery 
would have been justified in suspending that person for con- 
tumacy in refusing to recognize the law and order of the 
church. He had. however, put in his declinature, and I said 
that his declining to answer was in harmony with his declina- 
ture, and we would let the matter go. 

Now these are the facts. The case went on. It may be said, 
"Should not this declinature have arrested the proceedings?" 
A declinature is simply an interlocutory appeal, and it is sub- 
ject to the same rules as other appeals. You may go on and 
finish the case. If the Court see fit, it may arrest proceed- 
ings; but if the Court see fit, It may go on; and the Court 
saw fit to go on, and the prosecutor in the case, or the one 
who represented the Presbytery, was Professor Willson; and 
when he brought the case before the Court he did it in this 
way : tk I wish simply to ask that three things be put upon the 
record : 1st. What is the Minute as to Mr. McClurkin's ac- 
knowledgment at the meeting of Presbytery in the month of 
October ?" The Minute was read. I ask for the reading of 
that Minute now. 

(The clerk being unable to find the Minute just then, the 
speaker proceeded as follows:) 

While that is being looked up, I will mention the second 
question. The second question was to be answered and the 
answ T er to be put upon record : "2nd. IMd not Mr. McClurkin 
sign the basis of agreement?" 

The fact was brought out that the chairman of the Judicial 
Committee sent on to Mr. McClurkin, who was in the distant 
West, the basis that had been agreed on. It had been agreed 
to by the six that were present, and as Mr. McClurkin was not 
present, it was sent to him. He returned it with his signature 
attached to it, disavowing the East End Platform, and so on. 

The third thing was this : "3rd. That there be put upon 
the record Mr. McClurkin's declining to a swer the Moder- 
ator's question when he was interrogated as to the facts, 
whether he was at the East End Meeting and gave approval 
to its Platform."* 

With these three things put upon the record. Professor 
Willson submitted the case, and the Presbytery took its vote, 
and quite unanimously (perhaps there was one vote, yet I am 
not sure, as my memory does not serve me very distinctly, 
but it was almost a unanimous vote) found him guilty under 
tfie testimony that was thus brought before the Court. 

(The speaker here inquired of the clerk as to whether he 
had found the Minute asked for, and being answered in the 
negative, proceeded as follows:) 

1 can give the substance of the Minute. When all the seven 
were present, and when all the seven attempted to vindicate 



FRIDAY, JUNE 5. 



249 



their connection with the East End Meeting, and the East 
End Platform, the Minute reads that Mr. McClurkin, along 
with the rest, did the same thing. 

I wish to bring in connection with this the testimony that 
that Minute was read at the close of that session, and Mr. 
McClurkin made no objection to it. He was not present at 
the next session when it was brought up for final adoption, 
but he was present at the next meeting w T hen the five were 
tried, and w T hen* the trial proceeded on the basis of that Min- 
ute as a part of the testimony ; and when that testimony was 
brought out in open Court, in the most distinct manner, he 
never took an exception to the Minute; and at the time of the 
discussion of the admissibility of the libel, he still made no 
objection to the accuracy of that Minute; and not until we 
came to the discussion of the relevancy of the libel, did he put 
in his declaration that the Court was not in possession of any 
such testimony. 

Mr. Moderator, let me read here in this connection the law 
as we find it in Hill's Practice. I have referred to our own 
Book of Discipline, the 7f>th page, and I have referred to 
Steuart's Co'llections, where the duty of any one who is in the 
Court to make confession is spoken of, and now I bring this 
testimony also from Hill's Practice in the Church Courts, 
page 57 : "If the libel is found relevant, endeavors are used to 
bring the minister to a confession; and if he confess, and the 
offence be of a scandalous, nature, the Presbytery instanter 
depose him ab officio, and appoint him to make public profes- 
sion of his repentance." This refers, of course, in the latter 
part of the paragraph, to cases of immorality. But the practice 
applies in all cases, whenever a libel is found lelevant, 
whether it be a libel on the ground of heresy, immorality, or 
contempt. 

This was a libel for pursuing divisive courses, the real 
idea of heresy; that is, the rending asunder, the tearing apart, 
of the body of our Lord Jesus Christ. And when this libel 
was found relevant, those named in it were accused as dis- 
turbers of the peace and good order of the church of Christ. 
Endeavors were made to lead Mr. McClurkin to acknowledge 
it. The testimony was all-sufficient. The libel contained in 
it sufficient to induce Presbytery to find him guilty without 
his confession. - But when we reached this point, there was 
the declaration that the Court did not posses any evidence, 
and we followed out our own Book of Discipline, and this 
work, H ill's Practice, and used endeavors to bring him to a 
confession, and he refussed, and declined the authority of the 
Court. 

(The Minute requested by the speaker, having been found 
by the Clerk, was read as follows :) 

The CLERK reads: '-Item No. 2 was adopted. Opportunity 
was given to brethren to explain their position and connection 



259 



STENOGRAPHIC REPORT. 



with the matters complained of. Statements were volunteered 
by Kevs, J. K. J. Milligan, H. W. Keed. E. M. Milligan, A. 
W. McClurkin, O. B. Milligan, W. L. C. Samson, and H. W. 
Temple, all of whom attempted a defence of their connection 
with the adoption and publication of the Platform referred to 
in the Memorials." 

Dr. MCALLISTER: Now, Mr. Moderator, Fathers and 
Brethren, I leave this part of the subject. To the first part I 
wish you to give very special attention,— the grounds of 
complaint of injustice and wrong; and I submit to you that I 
have gone over the matter with careful, painstaking accuracy, 
that I might not leave any point untouched. I have looked at 
the whole field; — the admissibility of the charges, the re- 
levancy of the libel, and the other miscellaneous points of 
injustice and wrong which have been made, and I believe 
that you will all say, in the judgment of your candid, honest 
minds, that 1 have removed whatever ground has been 
brought before you that seemed to have any foundation to it 
tor a complaint of injustice on the part of Pittsburgh Pres- 
bytery in its manner of going forward and proceeding with 
these cases. 

SECOND. I wish to take up in the next place, the appeals 
from the verdict finding the libelled ministers guilty of 
pursuing divisive courses. And here we should understand 
clearly the nature of lhe charge. It was not a charge against 
their moral character. Let us be thankful to our Lord and 
Master for that! We can hold these brethren in high esteem 
ior their moral virtues. It was no such charge as would 
bring disgrace, as immorality brings disgrace, upon the 
Christian profession, — upon the men themselves or upon the 
body with which they are connected. 

It was a case somewhat similar to that of Mr. MacQueary; 
more analogous to that case than to the case of Dr. Briggs. 
Dr. Briggs* case is, it is true, something of the same nature; 
that is, he had been accused, not by a formal libel, but it was 
substantially a libel, brought before the Assembly, although 
of course the Presbytery is the proper Court to institute pro- 
ceedings, charging him with such teaching as would disturb 
the peaje and order, and rend the body in which he occupies 
so eminent a position. In that case, however, it seems, it is 
thought that the matter can be adjudicated by keeping him 
out of the position where the greatest harm would be done, 
and retaining him in another and lower position. 

I do not hesitate to say that any such compromise as that 
will work incalculable mischief to the great Presbyterian 
church; that where there is an influence that would disturb 
that church in one position, it will disturb it in the other, and 
the root of the evil will not be reached by any such half-way 
measure as that. 

In the case of Mr. acMQueary there was a suspension from 



FRIDAY, JUNE 5. 



251 



the ministry. His moral character is not assailed. But he 
was suspended from the exercise of the ministry in the 
Protestant Episcopal church, because the authorities in that 
church felt that to allow him to go on in the course of teach- 
ing which he was pursuing would tend to rend asunder that 
portion of the body of Christ, and on this ground he was sus- 
pended from the ministry in that denomination. 

Akin to that is the case we have before us. Let me once 
more say that the Presbytery does not impute motives. 
It does, not make any accusation as to the purpose. It does 
not interpret intentions. But let us be careful in regard to 
our distinctions here. 

You say intention is essential to any intelligent act. So it 
is. And 1 affirm that these men intended to hold the East 
End Meeting, and they did hold it according to their inten- 
tions. I maintain again, that these men avowed the prin- 
ciples of the East End Platform, and they intended to avow 
them. Nobody can say there was no intention there. They 
did attend of set purpose, that Meeting; and they have 
avowed, with equally set purpose and determination, the 
principles of that Platform. 

There is the intention that must accompany an intelligent 
and responsible act. What is, however, maintained, is this: I 
admit they did not intend, and the Presbytery did not impute 
to them the intention, of dividing the church. The Pres- 
bytery did not impute that as a motive. The Presbytery did 
not say to these brethren, "You went there with set purpose 
and the deliberate intention of tearing the church to pieces." 
No such thing, Mr. Moderator. There was no intention of 
that kind imputed. Presbytery makes no such charge, and 
therefore the Presbytery was at liberty to give to them, if 
they had- been willing to accept it, the certificate of moral 
standing, that there was no charge against their moral 
character; and that even in the matter of any intention to 
disturb the peace and order of the Reformed Presbyterian 
church. I simply refer to what my brother has so clearly set 
before you. 

I maintain that the Pastoral Letter never intended to say, 
and I insist it does not say, that Presbytery offered such a 
certificate to them. It does not say that Presbytery proposed 
it. The proposition was made in Presbytery, and I have no 
doubt whatever that if there had been any indication of any 
willingness to accept it, Presbytery would have agreed to it. 

Mr. JOS. STEVENSON": Just let me ask a question: Were 
all of the seven present when that offer was made? 

Dr. MCALLISTER: No, sir, five were there. This proposi- 
tion was made in Presbytery. Had there been any indication 
of willingness to accept it I have no doubt it would have been 
given to the five then and there, and to the two others when- 
ever they would have come before the Presbytery, if they had 



252 



STENOGRAPHIC REPORT. 



indicated any willingness to accept the same kind of a letter 
of standing. So that the distinction as to not being at that 
meeting amounts to nothing. There was a willingness shown 
on the part of the members of Presbytery which would have 
been put into a vote of Presbytery, had not the way been 
barred. 

I am sorry, for my part, that the question was not put to a 
vote, so that the offer could have been made directly by the 
Presbytery. But the willingness of Presbytery to do it was 
so clearly indicated that it matters but very little that it did 
not take the shape of a formal vote, because the refusal to 
accept it, on the part of the five, at that first meeting was so 
prompt and so emphatic that the members of Presbyterjr felt 
that there was no necessity for entertaining the thought any 
longer. 

We come now to the matter as to the fact of division in 
the church. Motive was not imputed. What are the facts? 
These facts have been adverted to by the complainants and 
appellants in most feeling and most touching terms. I felt 
my own eyes moisten as they spoke of the condition of these 
congregations. It is not necessary that I should draw any 
picture before you of the condition of our sister congregation 
in Allegheny. Just at present I am not going to say any- 
thing about who is responsible for it. I will take that up 
presently. 

But what is the fact? The congregation is torn anr dis- 
tracted; members of the same family even alienated from 
each other; elder alienated from brother elder; households 
that used to sit together in loving fellowship and companion- 
ship hardly speaking with each other. And one congregation 
simply represents the condition of a number of other congre- 
gations.- Nobody disputes the fact that some one, whoever it 
may be. in the Covenanter .Church of America, has been 
pursuing divisive courses. That is a fact that remained unex- 
plained "and unchallenged; and that is the fact that Pittsburgh 
Presbytery had to meet. Tt had to face it. It had to make 
inquiry, what is the cause of this? What is the rout of this? 
Who are the responsible persons at the bottom of this? Where 
are the men, and who are the men, upon whom the guilt of 
this terrible condition of things in the church with which we 
are connected is to be visited? Here are the facts. What as 
to the responsibility? 

Presbyteiy looked at the facts in the case. It looked back 
from the facts of division at the time that Presbytery met 
in October, and tried to trace those tacts to their proper 
cause. Here were effects. Something had produced them. 
With what were those facts to be linked? What was the con- 
nection? Following it up the members of Presbytery came 
through the Elders' Convention which had its place, on back 
to that East End Meeting, and to that especially as in viola- 



FRIDAY, JUNE 5. 



253 



tion of the law, or in contempt of the authority of the decision 
of last Synod. 

Now we have the law on this point, and I desire to 
read it to you. Let me take the Confession of Faith, 
for I want to read from the fundamental law and show 
you that the action of Synod was based on this funda- 
mental law. We open the Confession of Faith then at 
chapter 20. which treats of ''Christian Liberty and Lib- 
erty of Conscience. There is a good deal of discus- 
sion here of true Christian liberty and true liberty of 
conscience that I commend to your attention. It is too long 
for me to take time to read it. I pass on through these dis- 
cussions in sections first, second and third, until we come to 
section IV., which I will read entire: "And because the 
powers which God hath ordained, and the liberty which 
Christ hath purchased, are not intended by God to destroy, 
but mutually uphold and preserve one another; they who, 
upon pretence of Christian liberty, shall oppose any lawful 
power, or th<- lawful exercise of it. whether it be civil or ec- 
clesiastical, resist the ordinance of God. And for their pub- 
lishing of such opinions, or maintaining of such practices, as 
are contrary to the light of nature, or to the known principles 
of Christianity, whether concerning faith, worship or con- 
versation ; or to the power of Godliness ; or such erroneous 
opinions or practices, as either in their own nature, or in the 
manner of publishing or maintaining them, are destructive 
to the external peace and order which Christ hath established 
in the church; they may be lawfully called to account, and 
proceeded against by the censures of the church, and by the 
power of the civil magistrate/' 

Mr. Moderator, that is our fundamental law, founded upon 
the law of God Do you ask where we have the foundation 
for it? Well. I might read passage after passage. I need not 
open my Bible to the passages i have marked, as we have 
them here. Hebrews, 13th chapter and 17th verse:. "Obey 
them tnat have the rule over you, and submit yourselves; for 
they watch for vour souls, as they that must give account, 
that they may do it with joy and not with grief; for that is 
unprofitable for you." 

Another passage, which I do not see in this long list of 
proof passages, is a very important one; and I therefore turn 
in the Bible to Romans, 16th chapter, 17th verse: "Now I 
beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and 
offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned ; and 
avoid them." 

Here we have Divine law. God's own law, requiring ob- 
edience in the : ,ord to the authority of the Courts of God's 
house. Here we have this command, "Mark those who cause 
divisions." Here we have our fundamental law, founded upon 
Scripture; that is, our subordinate standard; for, of course, 



254 



STENOGRAPHIC REPORT. 



God's own Word is the ultimate law; but we have this which 
we recognize, too, as our lundameatal law as well, in a sub- 
ordina' e sense, and this tells us explicitly, that wherever, 
under this pretence Christian liberty, there may be the pub- 
lishing of opinions, — notice, it says, "the publishing of opin- 
ions,'' — of such erroneous opinions or practices, as either in 
their own nature, or in the manner of publishing or maintain- 
ing them, are destructive to the external peace and order 
which Christ has established in the church, they may be law- 
fully called to account and proceeded against by the censures 
of the church. 

Following out this law, the Pittsburgh Presbytery called to 
account the men under its jurisdiction whom it knew to be in 
connection with the East End Meeting and the East End 
Platform, which Meeting and which Platform they believed, 
as they reasoned the matter, in prayer and in careful consid- 
eration of the facts, to be the cause of the effects which were 
so lamentable, and on every hand to be noticed, of divisions 
within the congregations under the care of Pittsburgh Pres- 
bytery. 

Two names only were mentioned, because two names only 
had come prominently before the public. But as the matter 
was being considered in that meeting of Presbytery, the seven 
men all came out, and came out so frankly and so squarely on 
that Platform that Presbytery felt that the entire seven must 
be dealt with. 

Presbytery felt that in their attempting their explanation 
as to their connection with the East End Meeting and the 
East End Platform they had put themselves on this very 
ground, and made themselves liable to the censures of the 
church; because they had been sending abroad these erro- 
neous opinions which were hurtful to the peace and order of 
the church of the Lord Jesus Christ. 

There is the "sin and scandal;" for that is what our Book 
calls such. Do not be misled by saying that those expres- 
sions mean gross immorality. They do not necessarily mean 
anything of the kind. They mean sin and scandal in the 
sense of our Book of Disciplire, such as church courts are to 
take hold of, and are Dojimd to arrest. They must put a stop 
to them for the sake of the peace and welfare of the church, 
for which these courts are responsible. 

I must now show you just wherein tiiere was this disturb- 
ance of the peace and order of the church. I do not, how- 
ever, propose to raise this question here in a kind of general 
statement. I refer to the doctrine and order of the church as 
to political dissent and non- incorporation. I intimated a 
little while ago (or maybe a good while ago now), that there 
were many things in that Platform which might be noticed. 
There are a number of things which it might have been well, 
perhaps, if the Judicial Committee had taken note of in the 



FRIDAY, JUNE 5. 



255- 



first place, or the Presbytery, in acting upon the report of the 
Judicial Committee. But the Judicial Committee thought it 
was best to confine attention to one thing, and make the issue 
specific, and Presbytery approved of that by adopting the re- 
commendation of the Judicial Committee. The matter that 
was thus selected was the matter of political dissent and non- 
incorporation. 

I feel, my dear Fathers and Brethren, as if I might almost 
be offering an insult to you in bringing before you to-day the 
evidence as to what the position of the Reformed Presbyterian 
church is on this point. It certainly does not mean that a 
man should stand before you here to-day and cite the doc- 
trine and give the testimony • that he should go back and call 
up document after document in order to lay before you what 
you know so well. I must, however, just bring a few things 
before you, and I make a selection. 

Here is a volume which contains any amount of old ma- 
terial, dating back to 1833, and away back of 1833. I select 
one passage f -om this for a certain reason. 

A MEMBER : Name the work. 

Dr. McALLISTER : It is a sermon preached by James Milli- 
gan, pastor of the Reformed Presbyterian church at Ryegate, 
Vt., entitled, "The Prospects of True Christians in a Sinful 
World," published at Haverhill, New Hampshire, in the year 
1831. I select this because of the author; and I select it also, 
because of the date, antedating 1833. I select it again, be- 
cause it treats upon what might be called, not a political sub- 
ject, but an eminently spiritual one. It is a sermon on an 
eminently gospel theme, — u The Prospects of True Christians 
in a Sinful World." And yet this author takes occasion at 
that time to give us a paragraph all bearing upon the subject 
of political dissent and non-incorporation of the Reformed 
Presbyterian church. I only read a sentence or two of the 
paragraph : "Can we break our vows and engagements to be 
the Lord's and to oppose every thing immoral, and be inno- 
cent in following the multitude to do evil? It may be said, by 
joining in the Confederacy 1 shall help to reform those tilings. 
If this be a good argument, why not act on it in all cases? 
Why not associate with drunkards and bawds in order to re- 
form them? Why not join the papists, pagans and Turks in 
order to reform them?' The argument proves too much and 
therefore nothing. But how uncandid to swear to support a 
system in order to overthrow it? It is inconsistent with a plain 
Bible principle, — we must not do evil that good may come. 
Of such the damnation is just. This subject is certainly 
worthy of consideration and candid discussion, and it is 
fondly hoped, when the subject of Masonic oaths has under- 
gone such a thorough and severe investigation by the Ameri- 
can community, that the subject of political oaths will not 
always be overlooked. It is certain that or every Morgan 



256 



STENOGRAPHIC REPORT. 



murder that Masonic oaths have occasioned, political oaths 
have murdered thousands, if they are all numbered that im- 
moral principles, ingrossed in political constitutions, crush 
and put to death because they wish to be free. Why do the 
churches slumber over such matters? Sho* Id not the follow- 
ers of Christ take the lead in the reformation of the world? 
At any rate, let those, who have taken a stand on these prin- 
ciples, hold fast their attainments and not be conformed to 
this world, but be transformed by the renewing of their minds 
and hold to the rule of their former attainments. 
Eev. J. S. T. MILLLGAN: Amen. 

Dr. MCALLISTER : I am very glad to hear that there is 
some echo of the sentiments of the father. Xov, what does 
that mean? 1 wish to take that up a little more fully presently, 
but what is meant in regard to political oiths and holding to 
past attainments? Why, the attainment to which there was 
to be this holding fast was, the attainment of political dissent 
and non-incorporation; not only by Dr. Milligan, but by the 
church with which he was connected; not only by individual 
members, but by the collective body. The collective body 
was to hold fast to this position of political dissent against 
the Godless and Christless constitution of the American 
government, and to refuse to incorporate in the political 
society that would administer the government under that 
constitution. That is one testimony. I need not, as I said, 
go on. I could quote here by the ho r, from Dr. J. R. Will- 
son, going back to ls29, and away back of that, sermon after 
sermon. I shall, however, appeal to the Testimony of our 
church for a very special reason. But before I come to that 
I must touch upon one matter that will only take me a 
moment. 

We have had some very remarkable advocacy of what has 
been said to be the position of the church. Here is the action 
of the church taken in the year 1812 on Civil Relations: 
"That believing it to be the duty of nations formally to 
recognize the sovereignty of the Messiah over all persons and 
things, and to construct their system of government upon 
principles which publicly recognize the authority of that 
divine revelation which is contained in the Scriptures as the 
supreme law, their disapprobation of the presently existing 
constitution is with them a matter of conscience and wholly 
founded upon the omission of their duty." The meaning of 
this is, that this was a matter of conscience with the whole 
church, — not only with individual members, but with the 
whole church. Yet we have an interpreter of the early legis- 
lation of our church and of her Testimony who puts himself 
here before you and tells you that this means that it is to be 
with them a matter of conscience, in the sense that it is to be 
left to their individual conscience, whether they w r ill do it or 
not. A matter of conscience in the sense that it is to be left 



Fit I DAY, JUNE 5. 



257 



to the individual conscience! Oh, the unutterable shallow- 
ness of such an attempt at an interpretation of the legislation 
of the Keforrned Presbyterian church! Matter of conscience! 
Yes. That is, they would conscientiously take this position 
of dissent. A matter of conscience ! Yes. That they would 
conscientiously dissent from an immoral constitution! It is a 
matter of conscience, not to be left to the conscience of the 
individual to see whether he would do it or not; but the 
•church would conscientiously take the position of non-incor- 
poration, and require her members to take that position; that 
is, it would be made the law of the Keforrned Presbyterian 
church. 

(At this point, the hour of adjournment having arrived, the 
Court adjourned until to-morrow morning at 9 o'clock.) 

MOKXIXG SESSION". 

Saturday, June 6, 1891. 

The MODERATOR: At the adjournment yesterday eve- 
ning. Dr. McAllister, who was speaking in behalf of " Pitts- 
burgh Presbytery, had the floor. Dr. McAllister will con- 
tinue to address the Court. 

Dr. MCALLISTER : Mr. Moderator, Fathers and Brethren : 
1 had taken up the second point; that is. the appeal from the 
verdict of the Pittsburgh Presbytery finding the appellants 
guilty of pursuing divisive courses. I had shown in regard to 
this that the verdict was founded on a specific charge of pur- 
suing a divisive course. I stated that there was no accusation 
agaiost the moral character of the appellants. Presbytery 
did not even impute intentions or interpret motives. I had 
shown you that the fact of the unhappy division of the church 
was before Presbytery, and that Presbytery had to face this 
fact. It endeavored to do so, and trace it to its just cause. 
This brought me up to the question as to what the doctrine 
of the Reformed Presbyterian church is, as well as her prac- 
tice, on the subject of political dissent and non-incorporation, 
and an investigation as to whether it was opposition to the 
established principles and practices of the church that had 
caused this unhappy division, so that we might learn just 
who the responsible parties were for the division, of which 
there could be no doubt. 

At this point I take up the argument. And here it is re- 
markable that we have the concession made by the appel- 
lants as to the truth of the position of political dissent and 
non- incorporation. They maintain as strongly as Pittsburgh 
Presbytery does, that it is a sin for any Christian man to be- 
come identified with the United States government, because 
of its Godless and Christless character. And they still hold 
to this position with all firmness. This should be borne in 
mind. 

There are, it is true, certain considerations that will come 



258 



STENOGRAPHIC REPORT. 



up in connection with this that may seem somewhat difficult 
to explain; but this is a fact which we do not for one moment 
dispute,— that the appellants hold as firmly as do the mem- 
bers of Pittsburgh Presbytery that this is a Scriptural duty.— 
the duty of political dissent from a Godless and Christless 
constitution of government, and the duty of refusing to in- 
corporate with the political society which administers the 
government under that compact or constitution. Now I pass- 
on to what the points of difference are. 

There are two points which are denied by the appellants : 
First. That the church (and the term church is used in the 
broad sense) has an^v right to require political dissent and 
non-incorporation on the part of her members. This is the 
position. It is admitted that the position itself is Scriptural 
and right, but it is maintained that the church should not 
make that position, conceded to be right and Scriptural, a 
term of communion; that it should not require that as a con- 
dition of membership in the church. 

And this contention holds in regard to any part of the 
church. It means that that should not be done in the Cove- 
nanter church to-day. The Platform of principles adopted 
at the East End Meeting means that it should not only not be 
done in the Covenanter church, but that it should not be done 
in the church in any case. And if the schism in the church 
should be healed ; if the entire membership of the followers 
of Christ should be brought together in one body, in that one 
united church, with sectarianism and schism for ever done 
away with, it would not be right or Scriptural to make this 
concededly right and Scriptural position a term of commun- 
ion in the church, Now mark that. 

Second. It is also denied that the Covenanter church has. 
as a matter of fact, made this a term of communion. Let me 
not be misunderstood. It is not denied that, as a matter of 
practice, this has been done; but it is denied, as a matter of 
fact, that there is any right or ground in the Testimony of the 
church so to do. If I can understand anything, I understand 
their position to be this: That, taking the standards of the 
church, there is no ground in the standards of the Covenanter 
church for this position; that according to the standards, it 
must be left as a matter without any explanation which 
would bind any one to the position of political dissent. It 
must be left to' individuals to decide as they see fit. That is 
what is maintained in reference to the Covenanter church. 
Now these two points being brought before us, we get the fog 
and mist somewhat cleared away, and we are ready to con- 
sider the argument as it bears upon these questions. 

On the other hand, the Pittsburgh Presbytery maintains 
the contrary on both of these points. That is, Pittsburgh 
Presbytery maintains (and I speak now on behalf of myself 
and on behalf of brethren in that Presbytery whose views I 



SATURDAY, JUNE 6. 



259 



know well; and, I think, it is the position of the church, and 
in so far as occasion may require it, I can go to our Testi- 
mony, to our standards, and to our Covenant, and show that 
this is the position of the church) that the church — the church 
irrespective of the name — is under obligation to make this 
conceded right and Scriptural position'of political dissent and 
non-incorporation a term of communion; and that, if the 
church became one throughout the world, it would be the 
duty of the united church to hold to that position of political 
dissent and non-incorporation as a term of communion, and 
if she would not hold to that position, she would be coming 
short of what her Head and King requires of her. 

This is my position with regard to the unity of the church 
and political dissent and non-incorporation. And let me say 
just here, dear Fathers and Brethren, that I would never 
regard for one moment the problem of church unity as beirg 
solved, if there were not in the great body of Christ's people 
gathered in one, the distinct understanding that the law of 
God's Word would be applied everywhere; and taking that 
Word and applying it, we would be bound in that one united 
church to do just what we are bound to do in the Covenanter 
church to-day. We would be bound in that church to take 
this very position of political dissent and non-incorporation 
from a Godless and Christless constitution of government. I 
wish my position on church union and political dissent to be 
understood. It is a matter of right to me that it should be 
understood, and that is the simple statement of it. 

Pittsburgh Presbytery maintains again that what would be 
right, and the duty of the entire church, if > he were one, is 
the duty of the Covenanter church to-day, and that the Cove- 
nanter church has been trying to carry out her duty; that she 
has held to this position, and that she does hold to it; that it 
has been her historic position, and it is her position at the 
present day. So you see, the lines are sharply drawn between 
those that adopted the East End Platform and approve of it, 
and the Pittsburgh Presbytery, and, as we believe, the entire 
church, of which that Presbytery is one of the inferior judi- 
catories. 

Now let me advance to the next point, viz., the proof as to 
the duty of the church to make political dissent and non- 
incorporation a term of communion. For here we must return 
to the discussion of the great principles of the subject to a 
certain extent. What is the proof? Well, the proof is found 
in the lines of the church's conduct on moral questions in all 
the history of the past. If you go back to the early days of 
our fathers in Scotland, you find that they stood on that 
ground. The circumstances were somewhat different, and 
the great mistake of many is that they will bring the exact 
language and the exact things that were protested against, 



230 



STENOGRAPHIC REPORT. 



like ths military oath in Great Britain, and transfer them to 

this land and onr own circumstances to-day. 

That is just about what I would expect of what is called 
Steeliteism. That is just the view the Covenanter church has 
always had to contend with. — the view that would put what 
is called Steeliteism in the place of genuine Covenanterism. 
Genuine Covenanterism takes the principles that are immut- 
able, that are applicable in all lands, and that are adapted to 
the circumstances of every country. It applied these prin- 
ciples in the history of the Scottish church : it has applied 
these principles in the history of the church in this land from 
the earliest days until now: and it has applied them just as 
moral questions have come up. And I believe it has applied 
these principles correctly in every instance. 

Take, for example, the question of slavery. Where there 
was this great evil or immorality, the principles applied, said, 
"Come ye out; be ye separate.*" This was the duty of the 
church. The Covenanter church tried to perform its duty. 
Some other churches did not. And to-day there is a measure 
of reproach upon them for the reason that they left voluntary 
societies, like the American Anti- Slavery Society, to come in 
and perform the great duty that the churches ought to have 
performed. They permitted William Lloyd Garrison and 
Wendell Phillips to stand on the position of political dissent, 
saying. "We will not have part with the government because 
of this iniquity of slavery." And these men refused to vote. 
Whereas the church in her branches generally permitted 
slave-holding members to sit down at the Lord's table, and 
did not make this matter of slavery a term of communion in 
the church. We should be very thankful to our God and to 
our Covenanter ancestors that the light was made like that of 
the noon-day sun to us. so that from the very earliest times 
our church took the position that we must maintain non- 
incorporation on this matter, and that our principles and 
terms of communion included separation from the iniquity of 
American slavery. 

So I might go on with other illustrations; but I do' not 
think it necessary to amplify this to any great extent. Let 
me, however, briefly take up the matter of secret societies. 
Here, again, in the matter of these secret societies, is another 
thing to condemn. I read that passage from the Fifth of 
Ephesians yesterday. "Have no fellowship with the unfruit- 
ful works of darkness.' * That is the Saviour's command to all 
his followers, I do not care whether they bear the name of 
Covenanters, of Methodists, or of Episcopalians. That is the 
command of the Saviour to them all: "Have no fellowship 
with the unfruitful works of darkness." The Covenanter 
church has endeavored to carry out that command. The 
Covenanter church has done what ought to be done in the 
one united church, and what it should be insisted should be 



SATURDAY, JUNE 6. 



261 



done — obey the Saviour's command. She has said. "We will 
have no fellowship with these unfruitful wo r ks of darkness:"' 
and she has made this a term of communion. Xotiee that 
again. She has said that her membership shall not be per- 
mitted to enter into these societies : it is not left as a matter 
of individual conscience, but it is made a matter of imperative 
obligation. 

It is just so with regard to the political society.— the society 
that is under this compact of the Constitution of the United 
States. Our church has taken the same position here. She 
has made it a matter of imperative obligation. And why 
should she not*? If it was right in that matter of slavery: if it 
is right in the matter of secret associations, why should not 
the same thing be carried out with regard to this society that 
is hound by the Godless and Christless compact of the Con- 
stitution of the United States, the written document which is 
the fundamental law of the nation, and to which alone the 
ultimate appeal can he made as to questions of right and 
wrong in the conduct of national affairs'? Here again our 
church ha- maintained the same ground. — her historic posi- 
tion. — and -he has taken it on the authority of the Divine 
Word. 

Let me now ask you to read with me from Second Corin- 
thians, the sixth chapter and 14th verse. I might multiply 
these passages, but I will only read one: k *Be ye not un- 
equally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship 
hath righteousness with unrighteousness? And what com- 
munion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath 
Christ with Belial? Or what part hath he that believeth with 
an inrldel'r And what agreement hath the temple of God 
with idols? For ye are the temple of the living God: as God 
hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them: and I will 
be their God and they shall be my people. Wherefore come 
out from among them and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and 
touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you. and 
will he a father unto you. "and ye shall be my sons and 
daughters, saith the Lord Almighty."' Xow. that is the im- 
perative command of the King and Head of the church. And 
notice, the command I read from Ephesians was a command 
to the Ephesian church : it was not a command to individuals 
-imply to come out and have no fellowship and communion 
with the unfruitful works of darkness, but it was a command 
to the church as a church. This command is a command to 
the Corinthian church. It does not command simply indi- 
viduals, so that the church is left at liberty to obey it or not, 
but it is a command to the entire church at Corinth: and the 
command that came to the church at Corinth comes to the 
Covenanter church of America to-day. We should have no 
fellowship with these works of unrighteousness. What con- 



262 



STENOGRAPHIC REPORT. 



cord or agreement are we to have with these? How can there 
be this companionship? 

On this principle, thus clearly enunciated in the Divine 
Word, the Covenanter church has taken her position, and has 
made it a matter of imperative obligation on the part of her 
membership, and thus has made it a term of communion in 
the church. ISTow it may be asked : Where is the proof of 
that? The proof is so ample that, as I said yesterday after- 
noon, it seems almost like an insult to the intelligent ministry 
and eldership of the .Reformed Presbyterian church that I 
should ask you to go over the proof of that with me. I must, 
however, refer simply to two lines of proof. And I do not 
begin to develop this argument, as you ail know it could be 
developed. It is not necessary that I should. 

I quote from our authoritative Declaratory Testimony, 
chapter 30, page 240: 4i It is the duty of Christians — and you 
will notice that this is put in the broad way; that it means 
all Christians; it means the whole church— it is the duty of 
Christians, for the sake of peace and order, and in humble 
resignation to God's good x^rovidence, to conform to the com- 
mon regulations of society in things lawful ; but to profess 
allegiance to no constitution of government which is in hos- 
tility to the kingdom of Christ, the Head of the church and 
the Prince of the kings of the earth/' 

We are not anti- government men. We believe in civil 
government, and we believe in obedience to civil government 
in all things that are in accordance with the Divine will. 
That is where our Testimony put us long, long ago. 

What I have read is our Testimony, based upon passages of 
Scripture; and I need not read the long list of passages. 
There are many of them here. The principle one which I 
have read is not quoted here, I do not know just why; but 
there are a great many others. The one I read, I think, is the 
clearest and strongestpassage in the Divine Word bearing on 
this subject. 

The point is at once raised, and we have to meet the argu- 
ment again and again, and there is no use attempting to cover 
it over, that this does not say United States Constitution, and 
therefore it is not a part of our constitutional and fundamental 
law, of our Declaratory Testimony, that we should require 
dissent from the written Constitution of the United States; 
that when that comes in, it comes in as an unauthorized ex- 
planation by some one in the church. 

This is a remarkable confession. I have heard liberal 
brethren insist upon this as a term of communion in the ex- 
planation of the terms of communion times without number, 
in assisting at communions and having them assist me at 
communions. I have heard this thing over and over again. 
It is a strange thing that at this day we should have the state- 
ment rmide that that is not a correct interpretation of our 



SATURDAY, JUSTE 6. 



268 



Testimony: that the Testimony is simply a broad declaration 
in principle without any application of it: that it lays down 
certain theories, or exact truths, or certain authorities, hut it 
•does not require the practical application of these authorities. 

What are the facts ? I will ask your attention while I refer 
to what we have in the historical part of our Testimony. All 
that is said in reference to the adaptation of our Testimony to 
every land, you are all familiar with, and I will not wait to 
read that. I wis'h to show as briefly as possible just what our 
fathers did mean, just what they intended to do. and just 
what they did. And that was this : They formulated a Testi- 
mony that would do in France to-day: they formulated a 
Te.-tiuiony that serves our missionaries in Turkey to-day: 
they formulated a Testimony that, if we should have a mis- 
sion in China, would serve our missionaries in China to-day: 
they formulated a Testimony that, if we had a mission in 
Africa, would serve our missionaries and our membership in 
Africa to-day. It means this : That in every land, wherever 
the church might find her membership, she would, by her 
proper courts, apply that Testimony. 

She has applied that Testimony in America. She is apply- 
ing it in the Turkish empire. Our missionaries in Turkev 
are taking this very Testimony. My dear friend, the Kev. 
Henry Easson. who was brought up under my own ministry, 
as I am very happy to say. our senior missionary at Latakia. 
whose noble work this church has yet fully to learn and ap- 
preciate, translated this Testimony into the Arabic language. 
They have this Testimony, and this Testimony in the Arabic 
language. It is the Testimony of the Covenanter church, 
w here the converts are free from the paganism of their idol- 
atrous service. And in the mountain regions north, in Asia 
Minor, in Mersine and Adana and Tarsus, this same Testi- 
mony is the Testimony of the Covenanter church. In Asia 
Minor and iu Syria to-day it does not need any change. 

But what does this mean'r These faithful members of the 
Covenanter church take this Testimony, and they apply it. 
They apply it to the Turkish government. And if any of you 
should travel through mission lands, you would feel and 
understand the need of this as you do not understand it 
to-day. I want to give you a little bit of my own personal 
experience. It was my very great privilege to be among our 
United Presbyterian brethren~of Egypt, and to enjoy very full 
and frank conversations with them as we looked into their 
mis-ion work there with very great care. I have talked with 
Dr. Lansing, with Dr. Harvey, and with Dr. Watson, and 
with other leading men. What were the facts that came to 
u s . Said these brethren to us: --Our greatest difficulty is 
this : we gather in young men (some of you have seen pic- 
tures of them, which I have been privileged to throw upon 
the canvas in the presence of some of you), intelligent young 



264 



STENOGRAPHIC KEFOKT. 



Egyptians in that country ; Copts, some of them; I need not 
go on to particularize their races. These young men had 
been led by the grace of God out of the darkness of the false 
religions of that country into embracing the religion of 
Christ, and trained in the schools of the United Presbyterian 
church. When they come out they must find employment. 
Here is the trouble. They are educated young men, and there 
are few educated young men among the natives of Egypt, 
and the officers of the government seek out these young men T 
the most competent young men in Egypt, to fill government 
positions, and do government work; and the temptation is so 
very great, that the noblest young men converted to Christ 
from the native population of Egypt, are sometimes involved 
in complicity with the Godlessness and Christ] essness of the 
Egyptian government under the Turkish empire. That gov- 
ernment knows no sacred day of rest. The Christian Sabbath 
to the Turkish empire is just a day of work or pleasure. There 
is no distinction between that day and other days of the week. 
And thus these young men, converted from their false religion 
and brought to a profession of faith in Christ, are enslaved 
by going into a compact, which is not a written one, and does- 
not need to be a written one, and it does not make any diffe- 
rence whether it is a written or not. They go into the com- 
pact and become parties to the compact, and help carry on 
the administration of the Egyptian government in direct vio- 
lation of the law of Christ, in direct violation of the law of 
the Sabbath, and the law of him who is Lord of the Sabbath. 
The missionaries there, when they talk with you frankly, a& 
they talked with me. said that was the greatest discourage- 
ment they had in their noble work. And what a noble work 
it is! 

Let us now come from Egypt up through northern Syria 
into Asia Minor. Again we meet the very same diffi- 
culty. 1 he young men who are trained in our schools at La- 
takia and at Mersine, and at the many other schools, coming 
out, fitted mentally for important positions, are continually 
tempted to go into something where the law of the Sabbath * 
is disregarded. 

I insist that our church there is doing just what it Ought to 
do. Jt takes the Testimony as we take it here, and applies it; 
and it says to every convert that comes into the Reformed 
Presbyterian church. "You are bound by the church law to 
take a position of political diseent." That is the application 
of the Testimony in that land. Our young converts do take 
it, every man of them ; and it would do your heart good to 
talk with such a young man as that Ibrahim Razouk, who 
has been conducting the educational work at Gunnamia. I 
do not know a nobler young man in the church to-day in this 
country, or a more intelligent one. He is just as intelligent 
a Covenanter as there is living on the face of God's footstool 



SATURDAY, JUNE 6. 



265 



to..day. He knows Covenanter principles, and he applies 
them conscientiously, and though he would be gladly picked 
up by the Turkish government to do some work, because of 
his rare mental ability, because of his remarkable education, 
— for he is one of the finest Arabic scholars in northern Syria,. 
— yet that man stands firm ; and he does so not as a matter 
simply of individual conscience, but he does so as upon a 
term of communion in the Covenanter church in northern 
Syria. 

What is done there ought to be done in Egypt; and our 
United Presbyterian brethren, if they want to solve the prob- 
lem, — and I do stand here and affirm, and want it to go upon 
record, that in my judgment the United Presbyterian church 
will never solve the problem which she has on her hands in 
Egypt to-day until she takes the position of political dissent 
and demands of every convert that he shall not go into the 
Turkish government, but stand out and refuse to incorporate 
with it. because it is in violation, in its administration as well 
as in the understood compact, of the law of Christ and the 
law of his holy Word which is given for the conduct of the 
affairs of the nations of the earth. 

JSTow I want to mention another thing in this connection. 
I said this would be the same thing if we were in France. It 
was our great pleasure to have with us here some two or three 
months ago a representative of the McAll mission work 'nthe 
city of Paris. We had also with us a representative, Prof. 
Bertrand, of the more general work throughout France. He 
was to have laid the whole matter somewhat more fully be- 
fore our people than Dr. Chamberlin did. who spoke on be- 
half of the McAll mission ; but he was providentially called 
away. 

He was a military gentleman who has been brought up in 
the Army in France, who has that fine military bearing which 
characterizes many of the officers of the old world, and the- 
courtly dignity and courtesy of a Christian Frenchman. Let 
me bear my testimony to the noble character of that gentle- 
man. 

He failed to meet with us here in the congregation accord- 
ing to his arrangements, but I had a number of interviews 
with him, and I brought this matter before him. I said, 
••How is it with regai d to your Christians throughout France? 
Here is the difficulty : That you as French citizens find your- 
selves face to face will: the question of the administration of 
the French government. Here, for example, is an election 
appointed to be held, and members are to be elected to the 
legislative body of the French nation, or whatever the officers 
may be. Here are persons to be chosen by the citizens to ad- 
minister the government. The very first thing that you 
Christians have to meet, is this : that election is appointed 
to be held on the Lord's day. That is the understanding. It 



266 



STENOGRAPHIC REPORT. 



is a part of the French constitution, as that has become in- 
wrought into the very being of the French people as a nation, 
that they hold regular civil elections on the Lord's day. Xow 
how is it with you? How do you meet this?" 
^.He shrugged' his shoulders like a Frenchman, several times, 
and then he said, ••Well, well, we just have to leave that to 
the individual conscience.' ' I thought I was listening to some 
of the friends here in America. "But," said I, -now. is that 
right? Is that right'f- ••Xo, that is not right: that is not 
right. As for myself, I do not vote. As for myself. I cannot 
go to the polls on the Lord's day. because I would be dis- 
obeying Christ." " ••^STow." I said, --if that is the right position, 
why should not you Christians in France insist that all should 
take it?" 

If they would do that, that would be the Covenanter church 
of France. I care not what you would call it. If the entire 
membership of the church of Christ in France would take 
that position, that they would not go and take part in civil 
elections in France because they are held in violation of the 
law of the Sabbath, and in violation of the honor of the Lord 
of the Sabbath, call that church by what name you might. 
"•La Societe Evangelique.'* or call it by any other name, it 
would be the Covenanter church, for it would be occupying 
the position of political dissent and non-incorporation. 

And I insisted with this dear brother that he should go 
home and do all in his power to lead Christians of France, 
the free Protestant church of France, to take that position 
which he himseif admitted would be the right position, and 
the position in occordance with the Scriptures. 

These illustrations which I have given from these different 
countries, find their full confirmation in the position of our 
own church. This is what we do in our Testimony. We do 
not need to mention the constitution of the United States 
there. And all this talk that has been going through the 
church about the necessity of sending down in overture an 
explicit statement, is far from the statesmanlike character of 
the fathers in the church that framed that Testimony — far 
from the broad, comprehensive philosophic views of these 
fathers who knew what they were doing, and who put down 
the principles, and then left it to the church in every gener- 
ation to make the application according tc its needs. 

If we should secure amendments to the constitution of the 
United States in some very important respects, this principle 
would hold. If we should secure an amendment of the con- 
stitution of the State of Pennsylvania in all important re- 
spects, in so far as the State constitution is concerned, this 
Testimony would hold. And if all were secured in this 
country, it would hold in Syria until the same blessed re- 
formation would be accomplished in Syria. It would hold in 
Great Britain until the reformation would be accomplished 



SATURDAY, JUNE 6. 



267 



there, and so on until it would be accomplished in every 
nation of the world. 

That is the broad statesmanlike view of our forefathers in 
framing a Testimony adapted to all lands, leaving it to the 
church in every land to make the application ; not outside of 
her constitutional powers, not as something extra- constitu- 
tional, but as something required by the constitution, some- 
thing that would carry the constitution, and absolutely 
necessary to carry the constitution, into effect. 

I advance just one point more before I leave this, and it is 
in reference to the Covenant of 1871. It has been a remark- 
able providence that we come here in this very building 
where we have all the memorials of that solemn act of twenty 
years ago around us. You see on the walls references to the 
fact, that twenty years ago we here stood before God, and 
swore with uplifted hands that we would be faithful to his 
church, and to this position — this Covenant position — of our 
fathers in other lands as well as of our fathers in this land. 

And very appropriately, we have here the inscription, "For 
Ohrist's Crown and Covenant," with a number of practical 
issues that are included in that, as: "The Sabbath," "Na- 
tional Reform" in all its departments, which means the ap- 
plication of the law of Christ to every moral question — the 
marriage question, the education question; it does not matter 
what moral question it may be, — that comes up in national 
- life. This is what we have agreed to do. In Covenant we 
have agreed that we will apply the law of Christ to all these 
questions, and settle them accordingly. 

Now I come to this dispute with regard to the Covenant 
being strictly a term of communion. Why, if there ever was 
a term of communion in the Covenanter church, it is that 
Covenant. 

I want to give you just a few references which I have noted 
here. You can go back to the appointment of the Committee 
on Covenanting, which I have here, but do not take time to 
read; the draft reported ; the draft adopted, as I have the 
references, and anj r of you can have this volume and look 
them up for yourselves, for they are all given with the pages ; 
the Covenant overtured; the committee to remove difficulties, 
— for there were difficulties in the way of the Covenant; — the 
vote on the overture; and so we pass on step by step. And 1 
may just say with regard to this overture that every Presby- 
tery in the Covenanter church in America reported a vote in 
favor of the Covenant. 

That Covenant went down to the sessions and was voted on 
by sessions, and the Presbyteries reported the votes cf all the 
sessions under their care, and the full report came before this 
Synod in the year 1871, and the report was that it had been 
voted affirmatively in every Presbytery, as it had been sent 
down in overture, and by a very large proportion of the 



268 



STENOGRAPHIC REPORT. 



congregations. I think it was something like five sixths of 
the congregations. 

There were sessions that did not give their vote in the 
affirmative, but it was the vote of the Eeformed Presbyterian 
church with a degree of unanimity such as seldom character- 
izes any great measure. When it was reported as being 
adopted in overture. Synod proceeded here with uplifted 
hand to swear that Covenant. 

I want now in this connection to give my reason for oppos- 
ing this latest proposition for a basis of agreement, after the 
first attempt was made (The reference is to the basis offered 
in Synod by the Eev. Dr. T. P. Stevenson.) 

The first attempt was made to secure a basis of agreement 
which would either be signed, or. which is the same thing, 
which would have the oral approval of the men who were 
interested. So we went on. step by step, until my dear brother 
from Philadelphia— with whom it has been one of the great- 
est pleasures of my life to be associated in public work" now 
for the full period of our ministerial life, coming out just 
about at the same time, having been at the Seminary together, 
and in many respects, like David and Jonathan, bound to- 
gether with ties of rare strength — made this proposition. At 
first I thought I could approve it. I was so anxious to have 
something like that carried into effect. But at length the 
conviction was forced upon me by such remarks as Professor 
"Will son made, that it would never do for one moment. 

That brought to my mind another fact: we have a bond: 
we have a basis of agreement, it has not only been agreed to. 
it has not only been signed, but it has been sworn, "it is an. 
agreement to which God is a party. 

"Our enterprising brother from New York wished to have 
that basis, submitted by Dr. Stevenson, whom we all respect 
and admire, printed. It was put in the hands of this brother 
to be printed. 

Here is this other bond, this previous bond, already print- 
ed; and I want to put it in the hands of the reporters — these 
gentlemen who are doing something that will go down in 
history. Let me distribute this among you. gentlemen, that 
you may do what is due to yourselves, and what is due to the 
papers whose good name you represent, that there shall not 
be any misrepresentation, but a fair impartial record of all 
the facts in this case, worthy of an occasion like this, and 
worthy of a free press and a free country. 

(At this point Dr. McAllister handed to the representatives 
of the press a printed copy of the Covenant referred to. with 
a request that they' publish the same.) 

I have here other copies, if any of the brethren wish them. 
I need not ask the members of our own church to look at this 
document. Turn to page 5. and I will read the third section. 
I need not read, but I will ask the reporters to give it. If 



SATURDAY, JUNE 6. 



269 



they want to do full justice in this matter, let them give that 
third section from the beginning, which shows how we take 
ourselves sacredly bound to do everything that citizens ought 
to do out of the purest patriotism, to shirk no burden, no 
responsibility; in our civil relations to do everything that a 
Christian man can consistently do out of love to his country, 
and loyalty to his Lord and Master at the same time. 

That, Brethren, has been our position, and is our position 
to-day. And let it be known that we take this position of 
political dissent simply because we love our land and love 
our fellow citizens, and in order to lift our country up out of 
this pit of degradation into which it has been so rapidly 
falling through its Godlessness and Christlessness. 

Then, after we have this preface and protest, we add this: 
"We will pray . and labor for the peace and welfare of our 
country, and for its reformation by a constitutional recogni- 
tion of God as the source of all power, of Jesus Christ as the 
Kuler of Nations, of the Holy Scriptures as the Supreme rule, 
and of the true Christian religion ; and we will continue to 
refuse to incorporate by any act with the political body until 
this blessed reformation has been secured. *' 

A MEMBER : Amen. 

Dr. MCALLISTER : That is our Covenant, and that is what 
we mean to stand by. The member says, '•Amen/' Does he 
mean it for himself, or does he mean it for the whole church? 

The MEMBER: For the whole church. 

Dr. MCALLISTER : Then, if that is so. you are a Covenan- 
ter, and you can"t leave the body, whatever differences there 
may be between you and me as to the application of that 
principle; standing upon that principle, with this Covenant, 
unless the church compels you to do something that your 
conscience will not permit you to do. Now, if you say that 
the church so compels you, then I say that your duty is 
simple. If you are constrained against your conscience to do 
some positive act, then you ma.y go out. 

I wish just in this connection to show you how there have 
been misinterpretations. It has been said that the act of the 
Synod of 1889, compels men to take a position contrary to 
their conscience. It does nothing of the kind. It says to any 
man who does not want to vote on a constitutional amend- 
ment, "You need not vote; you are not put under any obli- 
gation to vote;'' but it says to men who believe it to be their 
duty to vote on such occasions, "You may vote/' It leaves 
my conscience free to vote, and it does not bind the consci- 
ence of any member to give a vote, if he thinks he should not 
vote. That is exactly the solution of these questions of obli- 
gation; — that there shall be nothing that shall constrain the 
conscience of any man, but that we hold the principle that 
the entire body, not the individuals as individuals, but the 
church as a church, binds herself by this Covenant to main- 



270 



STENOGRAPHIC REPORT. 



tain this position of political dissent and non-incorporation 
until the blessed reformation he effected. 

In this connection I must draw some distinctions. My 
Friends. I think we are now in the discussion of the greatest 
question that we have had to deal with since 1S33. There are 
certain topics on which this has a most important hearing-, 
and for that reason I wish to bring out some of these points. 
I think they have a most direct bearing upon the subject as 
to whether this duty of political dissent is binding upon the 
church. 

There has been a great deal of fog and mist thrown around 
the question of analogy between the Xational Keform Asso- 
ciation and the Covenanter church on this score. Let me try 
to clear that up, as I am sure it can be cleared up. whether I 
am- competent to do it or not. 

This is the distinction : The Xational Reform Association 
is a purely voluntary association. It draws its membership 
from many churches. It does not ask any one of its members 
to go contrary to the stipulations and regulations and cove- 
nant engagements of his own church. It takes in such a man 
as the Hon. Felix R. Brunot. of the Protestant Episcopal 
church, its venerable president; it takes in such a man as 
John Alexander, of the United Presbyterian church, its fore- 
most and most honored vice-president : it takes in such men 
as are found scattered throughout the east and the west, the 
Rev. Dr. Milton S. Terry, of the Methodist Episcopal church; 
such a man as Judge Hagans. of Cincinnati. Ohio, a member 
also of the Methodist Episcopal church : such a man as the 
Hon. William Strong, a member of the Presbyterian church, 
and formerly one of the justices of the supr^e court of the 
United States. 

But I need not go on and enumpycice the members of this 
association. It takes in this ^:J.e range, and it does so simply 
as an association with a s pecific end. It does not take up 
other moral questions directly. They may come up somewhat 
incidentally, but it lays down a constitution to which all 
these men agree, and thus this association goes forward. It 
is not under obligations to take up all truth and apply all 
truth, but to take the truth that bears upon the specific end 
which it has in view. Xow I will admit that this is done 
simply because the church fails in her duty, and because the 
state fails in its duty. If God"s ordinances, the state and the 
church, these societies of divine ordainment. did their whole 
duty, there would not be anything left for the Xational Re- 
form Association to do. nor any of these other organizations 
of the same kind. But the state is not doing its full duty. 
The state is not fully applying the divine law. The church 
is not doing her whole duty. Different branches of the 
church are failing in part to do what ought to be done. We= 
have one confirmation of this from the exercises of our Quar- 



SATURDAY, JUNE 6. 



271 



ter Centennial. A representative of the Presbyterian church, 
Dr. I. K". Hays, and another speaker, a member of the United 
Presbyterian church, Dr. W J. Robinson, gave us addresses 
from ihis platform only a little over a week ago. Both of 
these men admitted that the churches generally are not doing 
their whole duty, and that the Covenanter church has been 
and is attempting to do her duty iu applying the law of God 
to public moral questions. 

Now these men come together in great numbers and form 
the National Reform Association. Dr. I. N. Hays is one of 
its most efficient members on the executive committee; and 
these men can take that position, and we all can take it be- 
cause that association, as an association which men have 
framed, is not required to apply all God's truth. It can leave 
out such truths as do not bear upon the special end in view, 
and not be unfaithful to its trust. But the church is of God's 
own ordaining. The church cannot leave any truth at one 
side; the church cannot ignore a single principle of God's 
Word without being unfaithful to her trust and to her duty; 
and if this duty of political dissent and non-incorporation be 
a Scriptural duty, as is conceded, the church is bound to put 
it into her Testimony and appiy it, and if she fails to make 
the application of it, she is failing in her tn st. 

She must make the same application in every case of Sab- 
bath desecrating associations, I don't care what they are 
called. In regard to railway companies that are dishonoring 
the Sabbath, she must say to her members, ''You must not go 
into them." In regard to secret societies, she must say to 
her members, "You cannot enter into these." because she 
cannot ignore any truth. She cannot enter into any covenant 
that will compromise any truth; she must take the truth and 
faithfully apply it; and so she says in every case of this kind 
to her membership, "It is a term of communion that you shall 
not violate the law of the church's Head and King in these 
matters." 

I will admit that there are certain things of imperfect obli- 
gation, where the discipline of the church cannot be applied, 
lam not going into a discussion here to-day of the lines 
within which the authority of the church must be maintained ; 
it is enough to say that this matter of political dissent and 
non-incorporation is a matter of such moment that it must 
come within the lines, and the church's discipline should be 
there applied. 

If we won't permit a member of our church to hold stock 
in a Sabbath desecrating railway corporation, how can we 
permit him to be a responsible member of a government that 
enters into a compact to distribute the mail on that day all 
over the country, as it does? That is a compact that so 
ignores God's law, that a law has been enacted, a constitu- 
tional law, that a post master may be required to handle the 



272 



STENOGRAPHIC REPORT. 



in.iil in the office, and as a matter of fact, the mail is handled 
all over the country on the Lord's day. Xow that is a dis- 
tinction between these two associations: One is a man-made 
association which can limit its ends and make special appli- 
cations of certain truths: the other is Goi's ordained society 
which cannot compromise any truth, but must apply all 
truths in its own sphere. 

However, in connection with the church there is another 
point to be noticed here, and we have had a remarkable 
illustration of it since this Synod came together: and I am 
very glad it was brought out in this way that we might have 
the practical illustration. The members of Synod were not 
all present, but enough were present to show us how this 
principle applies. Last night the members of this Synod 
stood upon their feet and pledged themselves personally, not 
to take part in any way in the Columbian Exposition, if it 
were kept open, or any part of it. on the Lord's day. Xow 
notice. This obligation was taken personally, which was the 
right way to do it!T This Columbian Exposition is a matter 
which has just come up. It is not one of those things to 
which we could apply the discipline of the church unless 
there be. as some members said, a looking into this matter 
beforehand. For my own part, I do feel" that it would be 
perfectly right if we should have said, as a matter of disci- 
pline, that anybody that would go to that Exposition would 
be dealt with. I believe that we have just come to that point 
when the church should say to its members, when there is 
this kind of violation, you should not go. And yet I am not 
going to insist upon that. I am not sure, if I thought the 
matter all carefully through, as I confess I have not. in this 
one particular aspect of itT that I might not be brought to the 
conclusion that it would not be such a violation on Monday, 
Tuesday. Wednesday. Thursday or Friday, to attend that 
place, as should be dealt with. If church members went on 
Sabbath, of course they would be dealt with. But if they 
went only on Monday, or Tuesday, or Wednesday, then it 
might be such a kind of support given that the church would 
not deal with them. 

We practically admitted last night that we were not ready 
to deal with this as a church: so we said. -'Let it be a matter 
of personal agreement." The whole Synod rose to their feet 
and said. "We personally pledge ourselves that we will not 
go: that we will not give countenance: that we will not ex- 
hibit anything, if this Exposition is open on the Sabbath." 
And I know that there are some that are very anxious to ex- 
hibit there: I know there are some who have products of 
their own genius that they would very gladly bring before 
this country, and reap the benefit in the wider knowledge of 
improved articles of industry : and I know that these same 
persons stood up and said, "We will not send machinery 



SATURDAY, JUNE (3. 



273 



there; we will not exhibit machinery there, if any part of 
that Exposition is open on the Lord's day." 

Now that is a distinction which i think it is important for 
us to bear in mind. Our Covenant does not bind us as a term 
of communion to all these. other matters, but it does so bind 
us to this position of political dissent and non- incorporation 
with the government of this country, because of its Godless 
and Christless compact of civil government that puts the will 
of the people, this changing, tickle will of the people, this 
people of America, with its utter want of homogeneity, where 
every man who can get for a little bit of money (oftentimes it 
is done by trickery and fraud) the sacred privilege of the 
elective franchise, can go and cast that little bit of paper in 
the bailot box, and help determine the affairs of this great 
nation, on the principle that this assertion of the human will 
is put in the place of God Almighty, the Supreme Authority, 
who is King of kings and Lord of lords. That is the position 
we hold to as a term of communion of imperative obligation 
in the Reformed Presbyterian church. 

I maintain, in the next place, that the East End Meeting 
and Platform have assailed this position of the church. This 
is the position which the East End Meeting and Platform 
have assailed, and therefore here rests the responsibility for 
the division which we have in our church on this very point 
to-day. My dear Brethren, if you had been present at the 
Pittsburgh Presbytery when these petitions were read from 
the congregations, you would have had no sadder experience 
than to hear elders and members pleading that Presbytery 
should not go forward and sentence these ministers, or plead- 
ing, after the sentence had been inflicted, that the sentence 
should be removed. On what grounds? Xot only on the 
grounds of sympathy and tender feeling for these dear breth- 
ren, for there was a tender chord that would be touched in 
every heart, but pleading the very position which is antago- 
nistic to the life of the Reformed Presbyterian church; 
pleading the very position that assails this historic funda- 
mental doctrine of political dissent and non-incorporation. 

But here, alas! is what appears before us to-day. I recol- 
lect hearing my father say concerning the Arian controversy 
in Ireland during his early boyhood days, and I recollect 
hearing others say, that the trouble was not so much what 
certain ministers did say in the Presbyterian church, but 
what ministers failed to say. They did teach a great deal of 
truth, but they did not teach the divinity of Christ. They 
did bring out important parts of the Gospel, but they failed 
to bring out the all-important truths; and the consequence 
was that the evil sprang up that caused such a dissension. 
That was the pursuing of a divisive course in our sister 
church, in the north of Ireland. 

The evidence appeared before Presbytery in the petitions 



274 



STENOGRAPHIC REPORT. 



and in the arguments that Mere made in the enforcement of 
them by those who came as members of congregations; and 
I am ready to charge here to-day, that whi]e testimony wa& 
given that certain pastors did not assail the principles of the 
church in their pulpits, they did so leave out the Eefoimed 
Presbvterian 

Rev. D. S. FARIS: Presbvterian church? 

Dr. MCALLISTER : They had omitted to carry out the- 
application of this Covenant, which says in solemn engage- 
ment, "We will pray and labor," we will bear this testimony:' 
and that testimony was not borne. And I can appeal to the 
membership of the congregations that this testimony that 
ought to resound from every pulpit, had not resounded from 
their pulpits, and there has not been fidelity in the mainte- 
nance of these principles of our Covenant and of God's "Word, 
to which we have solemnly bound ourselves. 

Rev. J. S. T. MILLIGAN: Will you furnish the proof of 
this that was before the Presbytery? 

Dr. MCALLISTER: Ihe Presbytery itself will give the 
proof. I am perfectly willing to have members of Presbytery 
come, and have them qualified, and let them state what they 
heard. I will mention the name of one who spoke, Mr. Mar- 
tin Prenter, an eider in the Allegheny congregation. I shall 
be very glad to have members of the Pittsburgh Presbytery 
brought before this Court. 

Rev. J. S. T. MILLIGAN: I submit there is nothiDg in 
evidence, and the speaker must be confined to that. There is 
a great deal of this, I think, is granted ; but the question is, 
does it apply to a trial like this without evidence? 

Mr. D. TORRENS: I would like to learn what evidence 
there is of a statement made just now. and that is referred to 
by Mr. Milligan, that while the memorials all stated the fact 
that the seven ministers suspended had not assailed the prin- 
ciples of the church in their pulpits, yet the speaker says that 
it was not what they said but what they failed to say. On 
that point I would like to know if there is any testimony as to 
their omitting saying what they should have said. 

Prof. D. B. WILLSON: Is not the speaker allowed to go 
forward, and does not a time come to ask questions? 

Rev. J. S. T. MILLIGAN: I raise the point of order that 
he has no right to go forward and plead on that that has not 
been presented here on the record as testimonv in this case. 

Dr. MCALLISTER : Let me claim the right. Yet I am 
perfectly williDg to drop the matter. I do not wish to come 
in conflict with Brother Milligan on any such point. If there 
is any point such as this that he feels is in any way a griev- 
ance, I am ready to drop it at once. 

Rev. J. S. T. MILLIGAN : That is all I want. 

Rev. O. B. MILLIGAN : I refuse to allow him to drop it. 
I object, because we will have some testimony on that. 



SATURDAY. JUNE 6. 



275 



Dr. McALLISTEE : I pass on to the next point. I wish 
here to refer to the honorable conduct of those who have 
withdrawn from the Reformed Presbyterian church when 
there have been difficulties. I wish to bear my testimony to 
the honorable character of friends of my own. and I will give 
the names, for everything I do with the utmost frankness. I 
wish to bear the hio-hest testimonv to Rev. Dr. David Gregg, 
Rev. J. H. Boggs. of Philadelphia, and Dr. David G. Wylie, 
pastor of the -Scotch church of the city of Xew York. I 
might go on and mention a great many names. 

Let me now show you just how important this. I do this 
with the greater freedom as these are all personal friends of 
my own. I had occasion to remonstrate with them person- 
ally, as I did with Dr. Wylie before he withdrew from our 
church at all, against his taking this step, feeling that he 
should remain; as I did with the Rev. J. H. Boggs. making 
it a point to write to him from the city of Boston that I would 
be at his house at a certain time to confer with him on the 
subject, going from Boston to Brooklyn to see him. and 
spending a long time with him in conference on this point. 
I have alfo remonstrated with my friend Dr. David Gregg. 

I shall bear testimony to the honorable character of these 
men in this : They changed their convictions with regard to 
our church; they never disputed for one moment what our 
position was. No, they admitted the position of the Cove- 
nanter church. And this is what any church will tell you if 
you ask to-day what the position of the Covenanter church 
is. You do not need to go to church people to ask it. Ask 
anybody throughout the country, what the position of the 
Covenanter church is, and he will tell you right away that 
her m* rubers do not vote. 

These brethren do not dispute this for a moment. They 
eaid, however, '"Our conviction is changed " Dr. Gregg said 
to me that he felt he would have to withdraw from the 
church, and his reason for withdrawing was this change. I 
believe he does take part in political matters. He was one of 
the committee in the city of Boston that has done such noble 
work, according to their conviction of what is true and right, 
in opposing the attack of Romanism on the public school's of 
that city. And I believe he has taken part politically. But 
however that may be, I am not giving what I understand to 
be the exact facts excepting on this "point : he changed his 
conviction as to what was his duty and right, and he said 
with that view, it became his duty to leave the Reformed 
Presbyterian church and go into another body where he 
would not be out of harmony with the brethren, where he 
would not open himself to any accusation of breach of cove- 
nant. And he went accordingly. The same thing is true of 
the Rev. J. H. Boggs. The same thing is true of the Rev. 
Dr. David G. Wylie. And all these men are laboring to-day 



276 



STENOGRAPHIC REPORT. 



in Christ, with their own convictions, outside of the Reformed 
Presbyterian church, and I wish to give them all honor. 

N"ow when a man says that this position of the church is 
not a Scriptural position, i do not see how he can consistently 
remain in it. It is for that man to do as these other brethren 
have done; to withdraw, and not make any disturbance, not 
make any assauh upon the principles and order of the church. 

But what is to me beyond comprehension is the course of 
those who remain in the church ; who say that the position 
of the church is Scriptural; who say that this position of 
political dissent and non-incorporation is the very position 
that all God's people should take; and who yet remain in the 
church, and put themselves on the ground that that Scriptu- 
ral and truthful position should not be enforced by the dis- 
cipline of the church ; that it is a mere matter of explanation, 
and that it should be left to the individual conscience of the 
members of the church. That is something that I cannot 
understand. 

I proceed upon that point to affirm that the attempt of 
these liberals, and I refer to those who are on trial now, of 
course, especially, is to remain in the church and revolution- 
ize her. 

Rev. J. S. T. MILLIGrAN : Reform her. 

Dr. MCALLISTER: "Reform her!" And I suppose this 
would be the position of my dear brother here, which he 
avows, to remain in the church and "reform her," to make 
her different from what she is. There is an orderly way in 
which any change of that kind can be attempted. I do not 
deny the right of any member of this church to attempt to 
"reform" the Covenanter church, so that we should have tie 
designation, "The Re-reformed Covenanter church," or 
whatever name we may give to it. I would not deny the right 
of any one to make that attempt. 

But how is that attempt to be made, pray? We have a com- 
mittee appointed to bring in an order, so that it may be 
adopted for the government of our church. As to what will 
be the way of submitting such an overture, we have not that 
written out; but although it has never been written out, it is 
in the constitutional law of the church ; that is, in what may 
be called the common law which the church actually rec- 
ognizes. A.nd that is this : That it shall be overtured. We have 
had the principle confirmed and exemplified over and over 
again. The Covenant was brought in by overture. And if 
this revolutionizing, or reforming, or whatever the name may 
be of changing the Reformed Presbyterian church, is to be 
effected in due order, there must come before this Court a 
proposition to go down in overture, to say that political dis- 
sent shall not henceforth be a term of communion; to say 
that non-iDcorporation shall not henceforth be required ; to 
say that our terms of communion shall not require this. So 



SATURDAY, JUNE 6. 



277 



that when you administer the Lord's supper, and have the 
explanation of the terms of communion, there shaJi be no 
reference to this; so that no law shall hinder when men have 
been doing just as members of this congregation were doing, 
although I am sorry to say they have been doing it now be- 
cause of what they have read in the papers, and what they 
have heard; for we have had people in this church of ours 
on Eighth street within a short time past suspended from 
membership, three of our members, for exercising the elect- 
ive franchise. We were compelled to do it, because it is our 
covenant. These brethren, when they united with this 
church, knew that the church held to that covenant engage- 
ment; and when they violated that covenant engagement, it 
was for the session to deal with them accordingly, and it did. 
They were brought before the session, and they were con- 
victed on their own confession, and they were suspended 
from membership in the Reformed Presbyterian church. 

This proposed revolution, or reformation, is that members 
shall be permitted to do that; that is, that there shall be this 
participation in elections all through the American common- 
wealth; that those that do so shall sit down as they have not 
been permitted to sit down", at the Lord's table; that there 
shall be no accusation made in this matter authoritatively. 

This, as I maintain, is the attempt that has been made. It 
is an attempt to change the church completely. It is an at- 
tempt, not in an orderly way, but an attempt by a meeting 
which was called in violation of the express enactment of 
Synod, based upon her fundamental law. The Platform is a 
remarkable composition. And here I wish to read that sec- 
ond plank: "That persons, who make a credible profession of 
Christ, should be received into church membership on their 
acceptance of our testimony and terms of communion, with- 
out binding them to our explanations in the matter of politi- 
cal dissent, or in other questions." 

I submit to you that the explanations specially referred to 
there include this explanation so called; so that when you 
say that a member should not vote at civil elections, that is 
an explanation; and that explanation which would prohibit 
members of the Reformed Presbyterian church from voting 
for officers at civil elections must not be required in receiving 
members into the Reformed Presbyterian church; and not 
being required in receiving them, it cannot be required of 
those that are already in. That position, I maintain, is an 
assault upon the very life and integrity of the Covenanter 
church of America. 

I wish to show in the next place the schism and sectarian- 
ism of the proposed change. There has been a great deal 
said about the unity of the church, and the importance of 
that part of our Covenant which bears upon the v nity of the 
church. I hold to this part of our Covenant, and this part of 



278 



STENOGRAPHIC REPORT. 



our Testimony, as I have held to it now for nearly a full 
quarter of a century, and as I think with a pretty clear grasp 
of the subject in my own mind, after so many years of study 
of it, — a grasp of the subject which satisfies my own mind 
that I have hold of what our fathers meant. I understand 
and agree with one remark that was made here, that we m» st 
study what is well worth studying, for twenty, or twenty- 
five, or maybe fifty years. ]STow it is just possible, I need to 
study this twenty-five years more, before I get a right view. 
I am not going to be dogmatic on that, but I will just submit 
this : M&y it not be as well for these young men who have 
referred repeatedly to my teachings in political philosophy, 
— might it not be well for them to study my teachings for 
about twenty- five years at the least, before they begin to 
assert themselves so authoritatively? I am not going to claim 
a place on an equality with these fathers of the church; but I 
submit that they might do well, before they come out in this 
sudden reform, and make such an assault, to give these pro- 
found subjects a few years more study, let it be fifteen or 
twenty, or twenty -five years, I won't insist upon fifty years, 
before they are ready to give such a dogmatic assertion. 

I wish to say in this connection, that when you give me so 
much credit for having led you, my dear young Brethren, if 
you have had such respect for my authority up to a certain 
point, and have followed it, why do you so abruptly turn just 
there and leave me? Why don't you just continue in your 
respect and regard for my teaching, and follow me where I 
am now? There is a little bit of inconsistency, it seems to me, 
in that; to follow me up to a certain point which suits their 
purpose, which meets their own judgment, and then not to 
take a step further, because it does not meet their own judg- 
ment or their purposes. I would submit, then, that there be 
the following out of the advise, that or about a full half 
century to come there be a withholding of such positive 
assertions until they have looked into this whole profound 
subject a little more carefully. 

But a little further on this point. I have spoken about this 
sectarianism. Now this is just the essence of the violation of 
these principles of the church, some of which I have affirmed. 
I have taught the organic unity of the church. It is all in 
our Covenant, and I stand by our Covenant. It is all in our 
Testimony, and I stand by our Testimony. It was taught by 
the venerated Father Sproull in the article that was quoted, 
and I stand by his teachings on that point. They are Scrip- 
tural; but there can be a perversion of those teachings, and 
there has been a perversion of the teaching of our Testimony, 
of the Covenant, of Father Sproull, and of myself, and I will 
show you what that perversion will lead to, and I am going 
to speak very frankly here, let the truth cut where it may ; I 



SATURDAY, JUNE 6. 



279 



shall bring out what I believe to be the truth of God, let it 
strike whom it will. 

Going back to 1833 we And that there was a controversy in 
that year. The controversy of 1833 turned in part on the 
political theory of our constitution — the question whether it 
was a National constitution or a Federal one. 

I do not propose to enter into that aspect of the controversy 
to-day; enough for me to say that the Civil War determined 
that we were right, and that this is not a Confederation but a 
Nation; that religious acknowledgments are not only imper- 
ative in State constitutions, but in the national constitution, 
foecause it is a national instrument, the instrument of a great 
sovereign body or nation. 

The controversy turned in part upon that. Our very emi- 
nent brother, Dr. Gilbert McMaster, in a . letter in the Chris- 
tian Expositor, and in articles without number, based the 
action of the new school brethren on the theory that this was 
not a nation, but a league of independent sovereign States, 
and therefore religious acknowledgments should be sought in 
the constitutions of the several commonwealths; and when 
found there, we need not insist upon having them in the 
Federal instrument which was nothing more than the com- 
pact of a league. I pass by that without further discussion. 

Another point was this : The unity of the church. And let 
me once more express my profound regard for the scholar- 
ship of Dr. McMaster in his discussions upon the unity of the 
•church. I have taken pains to gather everything, I think, 
that Dr. Gilbert McMaster ever wrote. I have all his numer- 
ous publications bound together in a number of volumes. I 
have examined them, and pored over them, and studied them 
again and again, and I acknowledge most frankly my obliga- 
tions to him for many of nry views on the subject of the unity 
of the church. 

But here is just where the trouble has been; and the same 
mistake was made in 1833 by those noble men — Dr. Alexander 
McLeod, Dr. John Black, and Dr. Samuel B. Wylie. I need 
not go oyer the catalogue of men of noble character and pro- 
found philosophers. Give them all that is their due; but as 
they made a mistake on the political theory of the American 
constitution, they likewise made a very fatal mistake in 
regard to the unity of the church, and I think the demonstra- 
tion is complete. 

They insisted that the church should be one. Now what 
did they do? They abandoned the position of the old Cov- 
enanter church. They said that we must not hold to political 
dissent. They came out frankly; there was no such thing as 
any argument on the part of these men that it was a Scriptu- 
ral position, and a duty required of every follower of Christ 
that would be consistent, that he must stand and dissent, and 
refuse to vote. They frankly took the other position, that 



280 



STENOGRAPHIC REPORT. 



this disiinction was delusive : that it was not Scriptural. So 
they went out and began immediately to vote. Indeed Dr. 
Wylie began to vote before he went out. and because he did 
vote was one of the very points in the call for the meeting of 
the church court to deal with him. He had violated that law 
of the church. And there was no plea made in regard to the 
matter, that it was not a violation of the church law. And I 
appeal here to the records of the Xew School body. They 
never made a plea that he did not violate a law of the church, 
but they brought in a point by way of palliation or extenu- 
ation, that there was not sufficient evidence of his having, 
done it, arid that it was brought in as a false accusation 
against him for the purpose of influencing the minds of the 
people. 

What testimony there is in that indirectly and incidentally 
as to what the law of the church was at that time ! No ques- 
tion but the law of the church then was that her members, 
ministers and people, if they did vote at civil elections, were 
liable to the censures of the church. That is much stronger, 
since it comes in incidentally by way of implication, than if 
it had been the most positive affirmation. 

Let us look, then, a little beyond that. Taking this posi- 
tion, they did go out from us. They abandoned this position 
of the Covenanter church, and they abandoned this position 
on the plea of the unity of the church, and that it would be 
for the maintenance of the unity of the church, and for avoid- 
ing sectarianism and division. What did they do? If there 
had been true regard for the unity of the church, the moment 
they abandoned "that one position which in that day dis- 
tinguished the Keformed Presbyterian church from the* Asso- 
ciate Reformed church, they would have gone into the Asso- 
ciate Reformed church. This they did not do. There was 
no principle to keep them out of the Associate Reformed 
church. Some might say there would a principle to keep 
them out of the Associate church. Now. there are some here 
who do not understand all these distinctions, and I must just 
brief! y 

Rev. J. S. T. MILLIGAX : I presume very few here under- 
stand how this comes in in connection with this trial. 

Dr. MCALLISTER : I will show you that. 

Rev. J. S. T. MILLIGAX: I am sure nobody else would 
be allowed 

Dr. MCALLISTER : I want to show just how it is. I think 
Brother Milligan will be candid enough to admit that it has 
its connection with this. Without' entering into all this 
history, the charges against these noble men, as they were. — 
and against whose moral character no accusation was brought 
—was that they were guilty of schism and sectarianism, in 
making a new division in the church, without any foundation 
whatever for that to rest upon. And I charge upon these; 



SATURDAY, JUNE 6. 



281 



brethren who have maintained th&t separation to the present 
day, that standing out in that position without hav ng any- 
ground on which to stand, they are guilty, although the plea 
has been a plea of church unity; they are guilty of schism 
and sectarianism in dividing up the body of Christ. 

Kev. J. S. T. MULLIGAN : I say that is pertinent to this 
trial; but the history of the New Lights is both out of comity 
and out of order. 

Dr. McALLISTEK : I hardly feel like submitting to that. 

A MEMBEK: Ou • rule is, when we come to make up our 
mind on the case, then we can interrogate the parties on both 
sides, but not interrupt them in making their defence, unless 
they are arraigning the church. 

Dr. McALLISTEK : It is admitted that this has its bear- 
ing. Now I propose to show that what had its bearing then, 
has its bearing now. That is. for any members of the Ke- 
formed Presbyterian church to-day, with this plea suggested 
with regard to the organic unity of the church, to insist that 
this church is to be reformed and revolutionized by taking 
away from her her position of political dissent and non- 
incorporation, and bringing her down practically to the 
position of the United Presbyterian church, — that party is 
guilty of the same schism and sectarianism. It would be a 
reforming so-called, a revolutionizing of the Covenanter 
church, which would make her practically the same as the 
United Presbyterian church ; and yet it would keep up two 
churches which were practically the same. It would oe 
schism and sectarianism in the body of Christ ; a division in 
the membership of the body of Christ wi'hout any basis to 
justify such division. 

And we, therefore, are the friends of true church unity ; 
we are the opponents of schism and sectarianism, and say we 
will hold the Covenanter church fast to the great position 
which, when you come to solve this problem of the organic 
unity of the church, will be the position of the one undivided 
body of Christ. That body will come to this position, that 
the law of Christ as King is the law for his church, and that 
that law is to be applied in all the relationships of life. 

I pass on to the next point. Jt may be pleaded that the 
efforts that have been made to reform the church (for we will 
put it that way, as I rather like lhat expression) have not 
transgressed the limits of free speech, free press, free as- 
semblage, and so on. 

Now here is one of the most important points which 
you. Fathers and Brethren, have to deal with. 1 am ready to 
stand by every man on this floor, whether he is called a Lib- 
eral ot Conservative, and every man in this free Union of 
Ours, in the advocacy and maintenance of the true rights of 
free speech, free assemblage, and free press. I know that our 
fathers paid too dear a price to give up lightly such rights as 



282 



STENOGRAPHIC REPORT. 



these. But, my dear Friends, we mast be very careful about 
Avhat we call this liberty. 

I read from our Confession of Faith in another connection, 
and I do not need to read it again. Let me ask you, how- 
ever, to refresh your memories from what is stated in the 
twentieth chapter of the Confession of Faith, fourth section, 
in connection with this subject of Christian liberty, as to 
what would be liberty of conscience, liberty to think, liberty 
to express thought, liberty to print what has been expressed, 
liberty to come together in assemblage, and there give ex- 
pression to any resolution that might be adopted. All these 
are the rights of liberty when they are properly understood. 

First, with regard to the right of thinking. I do not pro- 
pose, and Brother Milligan with the rest of the brethren 
knows very well that I do not propose, to hamper any man's 
thoughts. I claim the right to think for myself, whether I 
agree with the fathers or not. And, my dear Friends. I say 
without hesitation that I am going to do my thinking, and 
you know it, whether I agree with this Synod or not. I have 
always done that. I have simply determined to follow the 
truth, to take God's Word and try. to understand what God's 
Word teaches. And you are doing the same thing. I am 
only claiming for myself a right that every man of you 
claims for himself. There is no one here that would deny 
that right in anybody else. For every man here — this brother 
has claimed it — and he has exercised it in Christian courtesy. 
So have all these brethren here claimed it. My dear brother 
there, with whom I have differed many a time, has claimed 
it, and we have been brethren still. 

How many a night have this dear brother and I lain awake 
or sat up? How many a time have we sat and talked hour 
after hour upon the points upon which we have differed? But 
has there ever been any difference of brotherly regard be- 
tween us? Not for one moment. I would not fetter this in- 
dependent, fearless thinking of any man on any point. Nor 
would I for one moment deny the right of giving utterance to 
the thoughts under proper limits. 

Brethren, the mind is not bound, and you cannot bind the 
mind. It will do its thinking ; but the question comes, What 
about the expression? What about the putting forth? And 
here we must never forget that freedom must find limits when 
thought is put into expression; and when it comes to the ears 
of others, and influences others, freedom is limited; there 
must be restrictions, or it degenerates into license and licen- 
tiousness. It cannot be permitted except as it is in compli- 
ance with law. You ask. then, what is to be this compliance? 
Well, that depends altogether on the subject on which 
thoughts are to be expressed, and the relations of the 
speaker, whether his thoughts are to be put into print and 
sown abroad. 



SATURDAY, JUNE 6. 



283 



If we go back to the time of the War of the Rebellion, we 
might have thought here in the north that the north was not 
right, and multitudes did think so. We had any number of 
secessionists and "copperheads'' throughout the north during 
the war. They thought, the United States government was 
doing what was wrong and unjustifiable. They opposed the 
•■carrying on of the war. So far as their thinking was con- 
cerned, it was all against it. When, however, they came to 
make public expression of their opinions and expression of 
their thought, the government said, that is transgressing the 
liberty of speech. And you remember what was done with 
Vallandingham. And the government did what was right 
with that eminent citizen of the United States, who trans- 
gressed the rights of liberty of speech, and the hand of the 
government was laid upon him accordingly. And so, had 
there been sheets circulated throughout the north at that 
time, advocating the rebellion and opposing the prosecution 
of the war for the life of our nation and the integrity of the 
Union, the hand of the government would have been right- 
fully laid upon such sheets, saying that this was in violation 
of the law. the true law of the liberty of the press. And if 
there had come together here in the city of Pittsburgh a 
gathering of those that sympathized with rebels, and had 
printed a platform, and sent it out, contrary to the constitu- 
tion of the United States, against the authority of the United 
States government, an imperium in imperio, again the strong 
hand of the United States government would have come and 
broken up such an assembly, and interfered with what was 
called the liberty of assembly. 

There are limits by which we have to determine freedom of 
speech, freedom of the press, freedom of opinion, — I won't 
say freedom of opinion, because you know from what I have 
said already that every man can think for himself; but it is 
when it has come outwardly to affect the peace and order of 
the social body of which the speaker is a member, and with 
which he is connected, in which he may in any way have 
anything to do, so as to influence it injuriously — whenever 
thought comes to this point, then authority interferes. That 
is just what our Confession of Faith says in that 20th chapter 
and 4th section, both with regard to the state and church. 

I simply wait to maintain that this East End Meeting, and 
the issuing of the East End Platform, and the declarations 
made on the floor of the Pittsburgh Presbytery, are violations 
of the law of the liberty of speech, of the liberty of assemb- 
lage, and the liberty of the press, because they bear an anal- 
agous relation to the Covenanter church of this country, to 
that which such others, as I have referred to, bore in the time 
of the rebellion to the integrity and life of the American 
nation. Wherever there is any such transgression of these 
laws of the liberty of speech and of the press, and of as- 



284 



STENOGRAPHIC REPORT. 



sembly, there it is a righteous thing that the authorities shall 
>take hold of it. Not only is it a rightful thing; it is an im- 
perative duty. And it was the recognition of its duty, its 
obligation to deal with matters of this kind, that led the Pitts- 
burgh Presbytery to take this action in hand at its regular 
meeting in October last. 

I come, then, to a point where the charge had been made, 
a kind of countercharge, charging the present course of these 
men on the teaching of others. While I have adverted to that 
in another connection, I wish to refer to the question here 
very briefly. 

I have had the somewhat questionable honor conferred 
upon me of being responsible for this whole business. It has 
been said again and again that a sermon which T preached 
here twenty years ago, is responsible for this trouble. I re- 
member very well how my brother, Rev. J. S. T. Milligan, 
spoke to me, and asked me, before I preached that sermon, 
what I was going to preach about. After it was over we were 
talking together, and I recollect what he said, and I knew 
he was sincere; and so it has b* en charged, that responsi- 
bility is to be traced back to that, and to other things in con- 
nection with that. 

Fathers and Brethren, I wish to declare that I have no 
responsibility for this course which is before you at present. 
Whatever responsibility I have for maintaining those prin- 
ciples. I am ready to answer for. I am ready, and I was 
ready then, to be libeled, if anybody wished to do it, and to 
defend myself. I did not violate the law as I understood it, 
and I am ready to defend my action then, and my actions 
since. But whatever may be thought, and I give liberty to 
our friend to press the action as he may see fit. I say that 
whatever opinion may be formed as to a sermon preached in 
this pulpit twenty years ago, or the course that has been 
followed out in consistency with that in the lectures 1 have 
given on political philosophy to the students and classes in 
Geneva College and the teachings I have set forth time and 
again, — I affirm that all these are in perfect harmony with 
true covenanterism. They are neither ISTewlightism on the 
left hand, nor Steeliteism on the right. In ?nedio tutissimus 
ibis— you go safely and most safely, between two opposing 
extremes. You do not want to fall into the extreme of New- 
lightism. I examined it, and disposed of it; it is contempt- 
ible. Mark, I do not say the men are; I respect them; some 
of these men are among the best men I know; I have worked 
with them, and I honor them ; but their principle is some- 
thing that I will not have any connection with, for as I have 
already set forth, to my mind it is simply sectarianism. 

And so, on the other hand, I want no connection with 
Steeliteism. I want to stand on clear, explicit ground with 
regard to what the truth of the Covenanter prim iple is; and 



SATURDAY, JUNE 6. 



285 



if I am responsible for anything, I am responsible for trying 
to hold the Covenanter church against that right hand ex- 
treme and left hand defection, that there may be honor done 
to her Lord and King, and that she. may accomplish her great 
mission in this counry, to lead this land into subjection to 
him who is King of kings, and Lord of lords. But whether 
that be the correct view or not, the men who have taken their 
own course must hold themselves responsible. If they are 
going to charge me with the responsibility, they need to have 
me standing with them, aiding and encouraging them in their 
present course, and that is something I have not clone. I have 
faith 1 ully plead with them as I had opportunity. 

My dear young brother, Kev. O. B. Milligan, seemed to 
think, after the meeting of the last Synod, that I would not 
carry out the agreement I had with him, to come here and 
assist at our communion. I never dreamed of such a thing as 
changing that arrangement. He came, and we talked to- 
gether. I told him he was wrong. I told him it was a mis- 
take, before any proceedings were instituted at all. I found 
it was impossible to deal with one man in a company bound 
together. I therefore had no encouragement to speak to the 
others. I did remonstrate with him, that this was the great- 
est conceivable mistake, to go and occupy such a position in 
antagonism to the Reformed Presbyterian church, the church 
of his honored father, and honored grandfather. And I say 
the same thing to him and to all the rest of the brethren 
to-day. 

Xow, if there be responsibility of mine for this state of 
things in such a course as that, judge ye, Fathers and Breth- 
ren. You can understand from what I have already said, 
how I have spoken with these men as I had opportunity, one 
and another of them; how I have tried to shew them the 
'mistake they made in abandoning the positon, in the mainte- 
nance of which their own dear and honored ancestry entered 
into glory. 

Another thing has been brought up, and that is the charge 
that this unhappy condition of our church is the result of the 
abandonment of her position. I do not need to dwell upon 
this. I simply need to remark here that the church has not 
abandoned her position, and I am ready to maintain this at 
all proper times and places. 

But even admitting, for the sake of argument, that the 
church has made a mistake in the past, is making one mis- 
take a justification of going forward and intensifying the 
blunder? If there has been any such mistake, let the effort be 
made properly, and every one has a right to make the effort 
in due form, in order to correct the church's mistake, if it be 
that there has been one ; and let me entreat, in the name of 
common sense, in the name of honesty and integrity of pur- 
pose and aim — in the name of the church's welfare, — let me 



286 



STENOGRAPHIC REPORT. 



entreat that, if there be charged upon the church one incon- 
sistency in reference to her members, that be not made the 
excuse of another aud greater inconsistency. If it be admit- 
ted that a certain number of the members of this Synod have 
taken a position that is not in harmony with the church*^ 
principles, why should that lead the entire church to take 
another position, which must be in antagonism to the prin- 
ciples which oiur fathers maintained? Let not, then, this 
course be charged upon any error of the church herself in 
the past. 

Thus we come, then, to the conclusion that this attempt to 
throw the responsibility off these men themselves is a failure 
on every hand. The course of the liberals since the last 
Synod, and particularly the "Organ" which they have seen 
fit to throw out, and I only refer to this simply as an expres- 
sion of views, has been the medium of laying before the 
public, scattering throughout the church, the very addresses, 
at least part of them, which were delivered before the Pitts- 
burgh Presbytery. 

I charge upon this entire movement, and in this case par- 
ticularly upon the persons that are before us, that they them- 
selves— not anybody else ; no teacher whose principles they 
have in part followed, and then, when it did not suit them to 
follow any further, abandoned ; no mistake that may have 
been made, — and I do not concede a mistake, but even admit- 
ted, no mistakes, so-called, which the church may have 
made; but the course of the men themselves, free agents, 
without trammels upon their actions, excepting trammels 
which they disregarded, the authority of their church ; — act- 
ing upon their own responsibility, they have pmvued a 
course, and that course which they have pursued is the course 
that b.ings us to this unhappy situation of things which you r 
Fathers and Brethren, have to meet to-day. 

This evidence is complete. We have all seen that there has 
been no injustice, no wrong, in the manner of conducting the 
trial. Now I have submitted to you the evidence that there 
is no ground of appeal from the verdict found that they were 
guilty of pursuing divisive courses. If you had been pres- 
ent, and heard what the members of Pittsburgh Presby- 
tery heard, you, I am sure, would have given your votes 
as the members of Pittsburgh Presbytery gave their votes ; 
for the verdict of that Presbytery was practically unanimous. 
The very few exceptional cases were such as in the nature of 
the case could hardly be otherwise ; particularly when two 
men in the first place, who gave their votes, were men who 
were voting on their own case. And so I say it was prac- 
tically a unanimous verdict; and being unanimous by the 
action of Pittsburgh Presbytery, it comes here to you and 
commends itself to you a& a decision which you in righteous- 



SATURDAY, JUNE 6. 



287 



ness will sustain, or as an appeal which in righteousness you 
will be constrained to dismiss. 

Third. Xow. Fathers and Brethren. I come to the third 
main point, and that is the appeal from the sentence of sus- 
pension. And here I wish to show to you that there is no- 
ground for this appeal. 

In the first place. I wish to take up the passage of Scripture 
which has been so frequently referred to. It is wonderful 
how we can have passages of Scripture referred to only in 
part. Do let me ask you. if you can get hold of your Bibles,, 
just to turn to Matthew 18th chapter from the 15th verse : 
..Moreover, if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go tell 
him his fault between thee and him alone: If he shall hear 
thee, thou has gained thy brother. But if he will not hear 
thee, then take'with thee one or two more, that in the mouth 
of two or three witnesses every word may be established. 
And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church; 
but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as 
a heathen man and a publican." 

Notice this: ••If thy brother have aught against thee," "if 
thy brother trespass against thee." then "go and tell him his- 
fault." Xow these brethren trespassed against whom? Not 
against me personally. I did. as I have shown already, per- 
sonally speak with some of them as I could until I found it 
was of no avail: that it was a combination, a sort of associa- 
tion, or organization: an organization to which the clerk said 
on the floor of Presbytery" that he was authorized to get 
names, and did attempt to get some names; and I think he 
said, if I remember correctly, and this can be confirmed, that 
he obtained some names after the East End Meeting had been 
held, as enrolled members of the organization effected on the 
Platform that had been adopted. 

Then what is the application of this command? This com- 
mand is for the one against whom anything has been said to- 
go. "Well, it was the church against whom this was said - r 
and Pittsburgh Presbytery was the representative of the- 
Covenanter church in this part of the land where this thing 
was done : and Pittsburgh Presbytery did fulfil this precept. 
It went to these brethren just according to this Scripture and 
told them their fault. "Then, if they hear thee, thou hast 
gained thy brother." They did not hear us: they did not hear 
the Presbytery. 

When this was attempted again, there were still more and 
more witnesses : — for at first it was done just as quietly as it 
was possible to do it. at a regular meeting of Presbytery, 
with no crowd of spectators: but by and by it came when the 
house wouldn't hold the spectators. Xow what follows? Let 
me read the seventeenth verse : "And if he shall neglect to 
hear them, tell it unto the church." That was the church. 
It was told the church. The church dealt with them. What 



288 



STENOGRAPHIC REPORT. 



then? '-If he shall neglect to hear the church, let him be 
unto thee as a heathen man and a publican.' 1 "If he neglect 
to hear the church. 1 '' I charge that they neglected to hear 
the church. When they were found guilty of pursuing 
divisive courses, if they had heard the church, they would 
have then said, "We are sorry." We would not have asked 
them to express sorrow which they did not feel in their own 
minds ; but they ought to have felt sorry that in the judgment 
of Presbytery they had pursued a course that was dividing 
the church. 

What was the church then called upon to do? According to 
this command, "let him be unto thee as a heathen man. 1 ' 
That is, do not say he is a heathen, do no pronounce him a 
heathen, do not pronounce him a publican; he is a member 
of the church, you recognize him as a member, but let him 
be unto thee as such. That is, relations must cease, und the 
relations must be as if he were not a church member. Sus- 
pend him. Do not cut him loose from actual membership, 
but as if so. 

This is what the church did, according to the command of 
the Lord, in order that this suspension might bring about a 
restoration of the erring brethren to their proper position in 
the church. That was why the sentence of suspension was 
inflicted. 

This conforms, too, with what we have in our Book of 
Discipline. I must call your attention to the portion of the 
Book of Discipline that has been referred to, and show you 
how that corresponds exactly with this passage of Scripture. 
Page 66, paragraph 5: "Offences which are private, either 
personal transgressions affecting only one or a few, or any 
other scandal known only to a few, are, if possible, to be 
settled without giving the scandal any greater degree of 
publicity, according to the rule in such cases provided, 
Matthew 18:17. v That is, offences which are private, — known 
to one or a few, — or any other scandal, whether a personal 
transgression or not, known only to a few. This does not 
apply in the present case, so far as that part of it is concerned, 
for it was a scandal wide spread. It was a fama clamosa; it 
was all over this church ; it spread throughout the length and 
breadth of the land. And so this rule which, in this part, 
applies to private offences, could have no proper application 
here. 

Then again, with regard to this matter of appeal from the 
sentence of suspension. The effect of an appeal, in cases of 
suspension particularly, does not arrest the infliction of the 
sentence. I wish to make that clear as a matter of Presby- 
terian law. Our own book does not go into the details, but 
the books on which our book is based, particularly this col- 
lection of the laws of the church of Scotland, the laws of our 
fathers, is explicit. And so in regard to other books. Let me 



SATURDAY, JUNE 6. 



289 



call attention to a number of these. I need not read the 
United Presbyterian Digest, which brings this matter before 
us as the law. In that church a sentence of suspension or de- 
position from office does not stay the sentence, as the Book 
says. I will call your attention to that more fully after a little 
while. I ask you to refer to Moore's Digest, page 737, where 
we have the rule of the church, together with a number of 
cases under the rule: "When the judgment directs admoni- 
tion or rebuke, notice of appeal shall suspend all further pro- 
ceedings; but in other cases the judgment shall be enforced 
until the appeal is decided." (See also Presbyterian Book of 
Discipline, ch. IX, § 100.) 

Now notice, the only exceptions are in cases where we 
have admonition or rebuke, and the reason is perfectly mani- 
fest. Admonition or rebuke is what puts upon a man the dis- 
pleasure or full sentence of the court. In the other cases, it 
is as in suspension from an office; and in the case of suspen- 
sion from an office, this Book says that in all cases, unlike 
those of admonition and rebuke, the appeal shall not have the 
effect of keeping the sentence from having its full force. So 
that we have here the case of suspension included, and thus 
this rule of the Book is the ground in part, on which the 
action of Pittsburgh Presbytery is based. 

Before I proceed a little more fully on this general prin- 
ciple, I shall read from Steuart's Collections, volume 1, page 
428, section 11, as to the effect of appeals; I shall give the 
Latin for the sake of those of you who are Latin scholars : 
"As to the effect of appeals, 'non sortiuntur effectum suspen- 
sivum, sed devolutivum tantum.'" I shall explain that for 
the sake of any of you, who do not understand it, a little fur- 
ther on. Consequently, because of this nature of the effect of 
an appeal, the appeal does not "resolve in the nature of a 
process for remedy of law against the sentence pronounced 
by the lords of session. It resolves only in that, that is, in 
the way of protest, and not in the nature of suspension." 
That does not refer to a sentence of suspension, but it means 
this : that an appeal does not act as anything more than a 
protest. It does not suspend the judgment which has been 
found against the person that makes the appeal. "By the 
last article, chap. 5, act. 11, Assembly 1777, an appeal being 
made by parties, should sist the execution of the sentence 
appealed from only while the appeal is duly and diligently 
prosecuted, and may thereby be determined, otherwise not; 
unless the judicature appealed to receive the appeal, and take 
the affair before them; and in that case the judicature ap- 
pealed from is to sist until the appeal be discussed." 

It is worth our while, Fathers and Brethren, to look into 
this with a considerable measure of care. In the first place, 
then, note that appeals do not have a suspensive effect. That 
is the meaning of the Latin. They do not have the effect of 



290 



STENOGRAPHIC REPORT. 



suspending the judgment, but they have only a devolutive 
effect : that is, an effect which devolves from one court to an- 
other. 

Now take the case of parties. There are two parties. An 
appeal is made in the case of parties. When this appeal is 
made by one party, it simply devolves; it does not suspend,, 
excepting where the other court will immediately take up the 
matter; then it will be arrested until that be done, in the case 
of parties. Let it be known once and for all, that in this case y 
by our own Book, the Pittsburgh Presbytery was not a party. 
Our Book says that in fama clamosa cases, the court finding a 
libel, shall not be considered as a party. You can look that 
up at your own convenience; I have not just marked the 
place, but some of you will remember just where it is. Here 
it is. Turn to page 82, at the close of paragraph 5 : "But in 
prosecutions on fama clamosa, the court finding the libel is 
not to be regarded as a party." Listen to that. il In prosecu- 
tions on fama clamosa, the court finding the libel is not to be 
regarded as a party." So that in this case we did not have 
before the Pittsburgh Presbytery, nor do you have, in the 
strict sense, before the Synod two parties. The court finding 
the libel, is not a party. It was carrying out in this case, on 
fama clamosa, the law of the church. 

The rule in Steuart's Collections is, that if there be two 
parties, and one of the parties appeal, and the matter can be 
immediately devolved, not suspended, but devolved, from 
that inferior court to the higher court, that will take it up 
and proceed. The process is to sist; that is, it is called to a 
halt; but in no other case. In these other matters that I have 
referred to, in the United Presbyterian Digest and in the 
Presbyterian Digest, these other cases, where there is a ques- 
tion of suspending men from office, or deposing men from 
office, and the court that is going on with that, is not a party 
at all, there shall not be the suspending of what is done, but 
the sentence shall be carried into effect. 

A great deal has been said, and quite a laugh was raised by 
it, about the analogy in a case of murder. As if there were 
any sound thinking in that presentation before this Court I 
Let me bring it before you again. A man according to that 
supposition is found guilty of murder. The low T er court found 
him guilty, but an appeal was taken. On that appeal you 
carry the matter before the higher court; but when the case 
came before that body, according to this supposition, the 
sentence of the lower court had been carried into effect, and 
after the party had been put to death, the higher court found 
him innocent. But, it is said, it would then be a matter of 
very little moment to the poor fellow, whether he was found 
guilty or innocent. 

Let us see just how this matter does work. Suppose we 
take up a case of murder. The murderer is found guilty ^by 



SATURDAY, JUNE 6. 



291 



the Court. The prosecuting attorney, bringing the case for 
the State, is not a party in the case at all. The man is found 
guilty of murder. He takes an appeal, and because he takes 
an appeal he is let go free. The argument drawn from the 
analogy is, that after the ministers were found guilty of pur- 
suing divisive courses, having taken an appeal, they were not 
to be suspended : that is, they were to be permitted to exer- 
cise the functions of their office ; they were to be permitted 
to go on. The man who had committed murder was to be 
permitted to go on and do what he had done. ISTo let or 
hindrance was to be put upon him ! If the analogy holds at 
all, it holds there. 4 The sentence was to be suspended, and 
men found guilty of pursuing divisive courses were to be let 
go on and pursue that course, without anything as a bar in 
their way, simply because they had taken an appeal. If that 
is the effect of an appeal, what is the use of having courts at 
all? What is the use of bringing before a court a case of this 
kind? Let it go until the court of final resort meets, and do 
not pretend to touch it until then, because no matter what a 
man may do, he may take his appeal, and he is free to do as 
he may see fit to do, until the court of final resort meets. 

If there be any force, then, in analogy, this whole line of 
argument and illustration simply shows that the Pittsburgh 
Presbytery did what it was imperatively bound in the nature 
of the case to ^o, according to the principles of government 
and Presbyterian law. 

(At this point, the hour for devotional exercises having ar- 
rived, the time was upon motion extended.) 

A MEMBER: It has been objected that some of the 
speakers have turned to that little book, and I would ask the 
speaker to read the last verse of the 26th chapter of Acts. 

Dr. MCALLISTER : The member will have an opportunity 
to do that. 

THE MEMBER : It is just in your connection. 

Dr. MCALLISTER : I prefer not to do anything of this 
kind by way of interruption. 

I pass next to the severity of the sentence. And here I 
shall be very brief. And, first, as to the functions and privi- 
leges from which the sentence suspended the offenders. As 
this has been shown, it was from the exercise of the functions 
of the ministry. JSTow it does not matter whether the words 
were, "ministry of the Reformed Presbyterian church," or 
not. I am ready here to offer testimony, and it can be done 
by calling upon the member of Pittsburgh Presbytery who 
offered the motion. I will ask Brother Crozier to state to the 
Court the motion he offered. 

Rev. J. F. CROZIER : The motion, as I made it, was not 
the motion as recorded; but it is the motion as recorded, in 
the respect in which the brethren took exception to it. Now 
I wish the brethren to take particular notice, and also the 



292 



STENOGRAPHIC REPORT. 



members of the Pittsburg Presbytery. The motion I made 
was this, audi have just the paper: "That these brethren 
be suspended from the exercise of the office of the ministry 
until Synod meets. " That is the motion I made. Professor 
Willson, with his usual accuracy, arose and called my atten- 
tion to the fact that that was not proper; that it should be 
"Until repentance and reformation;'' and that I accepted. 

Dr. McALLISTEK: That is the motion, then, that was 
offered, and seconded, and carried. According to that motion 
the Moderator pronounced the sentence of suspension in due 
form, as found in our Book of Discipline, on page 136. I need 
not wait to read that form of suspension, except to call your 
attention to the closing words, which are these: "Suspend 
the said A. B. from the office of the ministry, forbidding him 
to exercise any part of said office." And then, when the 
question was raised as to what was included in this with 
reference to other matters, like the privileges of the church, 
the Moderator turned to page 87, and read that suspension as 
it relates to officers of the church is exclusion both "from the 
exercise of office'' and "from such privileges as are peculiar 
to church members." This, then, is the extent of the suspen- 
sion as it was brought out in Presbytery, and brought out 
distinctly. 

The next point is with regard to the territorial extent of 
the suspension. And here there was no limit. There was 
nothing whatever intimating that this sentence of suspension 
still left liberty to exercise the ministerial office outside of the 
pulpits of the Reformed Presbyterian church. Why, what an 
absurdity it would be for a court to suspend a man from exer- 
cising the ministerial office, say in this pulpit, and still give 
him liberty to go right across the street, to the corner of 
Penn Avenue and Eighth Street, and perform the functions of 
a minister in the pulpit of that church. What would be the 
significance of a suspension that would permit anything like 
that? Then, again, as I have already stated, the authorities, 
which I need not repeat, show that in other bodies the sen- 
tence of suspension not only forbids the exercise of the min- 
isterial office in the way of preaching, but it forbids a sus- 
pended minister from exhorting, with illustrations from 
Scripture. (Baird's Digest, page 133.) 

That is the extent of a suspension. Now in connection with 
this, for this was all very clearly brought out, — I do not say 
that these illustrations were brought out, but the principles 
were brought out, — I admit there were some persons who did 
have a different idea. Why, it never entered into my mind, 
I never conceived of anything else than this, and I am well 
persuaded that there were but few who thought differently, 
and that these men themselves knew just what the sentence 
said, "Suspension from the exercise of the ministry," and 
"from the privileges of members in good standing/' Why, 



SATURDAY, JUNE 6. 



293 



suspension has no effect, there is no disciplinary fore e to it, 
unless it is carried out according to the law and order of the 
church. 

Now see how it was in reference to this matter. I wish to 
bring this consideration before the Court : The question was 
asked as to pastoral work. Again the Book was read that 
suspension does not dissolve the pastoral relation, that the 
pastoral relation still continues; and so it was stated that 
these persons were pastors of the congregation over which 
they were placed. 

Then the question came up about the supply of the pulpit, 
and this was discussed again in the same way ; that as they 
were still pastors, although suspended from the exercise of 
the functions of their office, supplies would not be sent to 
their churches contrary to their will. They were still to be 
consultated in that matter as pastors of the congregations. 

After a very short time the question came up about their 
support. Now all things hang together. Having been sus- 
pended from the exercise of the office, and being still in pas- 
toral relations, not being permitted by the suspension to go 
and preach elsewhere in order to obtain support, the congre- 
gations of which they were still pastors were to give them 
their support. It was only just a very short time until I re- 
ceived a letter, and if the gentleman is in the Court I would 
like to have him make a statement. It was Mr. S. 0. Lowry, 
of McKeesport. He wrote to me, asking my opinion as Mod- 
erator of Pittsburgh Presbytery in regard to this matter. Is 
Mr. Lowry present? 

(Mr. Lowry was not present.) 

Let me give, then, the substance of what was stated, which 
can be produced, and that was that the congregation of Mc- 
Keesport was responsible for the payment of the salary of the 
pastor. Other questions came up in the same way. In every 
instance I gave my judgment, not officially of course, but 
gave my judgment as having been Moderator of the Presby- 
tery, in connection with what had been done, that the relation 
still existing, the congregations could be held, and as I ex- 
pressed the opinion in the letter, they could be held legally 
before the civil courts for the payment of the pastor's salary, 
providing the sentence was respected. If the sentence had 
been respected that was one thing. The very idea was respect 
for the sentence, and in order that there might be no tempta- 
tion to disregard the same, the support should be given just 
as usual. 

It is true that when we had a meeting after this, one of 
these suspended ministers on the floor of Presbytery said, 
"The Presbytery were pursuing the policy of the government 
toward the Sioux Indians, and were going to force them into 
subjection by starvation." That charge was made on the floor 
of Presbytery, and if Mr. Lowry, sr., an elder of that congre- 



294 



STENOGRAPHIC REPORT. 



gation, is present, I will ask him to state what was the fact as 
to the payment of the salary. Or if Miss Martha McConnell 
is present, I will ask her to state. 

Miss MAKTHA McCONNELL: When Presbytery sus- 
pended our pastor, the motion was made that each congre- 
gation be put under the care of the Committee on Supplies, 
and the congregation make arrangements with the chairman 
of the Committee on Supplies. The clerk of our session called 
the officers ol the congregation together on the following 
Monday, the 15th of December. We talked the matter over. 
I have the motion or action of our meeting in writing, being 
a certified copy from the Secretary of the meeting, and this is 
the action that was taken: "Miss M. A. Connell moved that 
the pulpit be supplied two days until the special meeting of 
Presbytery" — this was in December, and that would refer 
to the January meeting of Presbytery. — ""and the officers be 
instructed to ascertain what is the duty of the congregation 
in regard to the payment of the pastors salary, and make ar- 
rangements in regard to supplies in case we can secure them. 
Carried." This is taken from a copy of the Minutes signed 
by the Secretary. It was the action of the congregation. I 
do not know whether I am at liberty to state what was done 
by the pastor. This was on Monday night. On the following 
Sabbath he preached. And I should state in connection, that 
cn the 1st of December he was paid in advance up to the 1st 
of January. • On the Sabbath following this he preached and 
received pay therefor. 

AMEMBEK: Preached where? 

Miss McCONNELL : As I understood in Deer Creek con- 
gregation under the U. P. church; it is either in Mercer or 
Lawrence county. The first two Sabbaths in January he also 
preached, and we understood he received pay. On the 14th 
or 15th of January he made statements as Dr. McAllister has 
said. Before Presbytery he did not state the action of the 
meeting, and he misrepresented the action of our officers' 
meeting. 

Kev. J. R. THOMPSON: I wish to raise a point of order, 
and it is this : According to the custom of this Synod and all 
deliberative bodies, no parties are questioned until after the 
parties are removed. We will hear both sides, and there will 
be an opportunity to ask questions through the audience, and 
to bring forward testimony. 

Dr. MCALLISTER : I wish to reply to that : This is part of 
my address. 

Rev. J. R. THOMPSON : It is no part of your address to 
bring up a witness. 
Dr. MCALLISTER : I could have made the statement. 
Rev. J. R. THOMPSON: Yes. 
Dr. MCALLISTER : The Moderator will decide. 



SATURDAY, JUNE 6. 



295 



Rev. J. R. THOMPSON": Of course, the Moderator will 
decide in vour favor. 

Rev. H.^H. GEORGE: No man has a right to say, "Of 
course, the Moderator will decide so and so.'' 

A MEMBER: I move that that member he compelled to 
retire. 

Rev. J. R. THOMPSON" : I made that statement because of 
what Dr. McAllister said. 

Dr. MCALLISTER : I said that the Moderator would de- 
cide on the case. 

Rev. J. R. THOMPSON" : That the Moderator had decided 
the question. 

Dr. MCALLISTER : Did you not just now say that I said, 
the Moderator would decide in my favor? 

Rev. J. R. THOMPSON 7 " : I understood you so. 

Dr. MCALLISTER : Didn't you next say you understood 
me to say, the Moderator had decided the case? How do you 
reconcile those two statements? 

Rev. J. R. THOMPSON: Thev are perfectly reconcilable. 

Rev. Dr. H. H. GEORGE : Mr. Thompson said as he sat 
down. "Of course, the Moderator would sustain him." 

Rev. J. R. THOMPSON": With that explanation of Dr. 
McAllister I withdraw the statement. 

The MODERATOR: The Moderator understands that 
parties are to be questioned when the hour comes for ques- 
tioning parties. The Moderator understands that the speaker 
called upon Miss McConnell to make a statement that is 
really a part of his speech. He could have made the same 
statement himself, he tells us, and he simply calls upon the 
lady to make the statement as one who was well acquainted 
with the facts, and the Moderator does not see that there is 
anv violation of the rules in this matter. 

Rev. J. R. THOMPSON: I understand that. It has been 
our custom always to have the parties removed and then ask 
questions. 

A MEMBER : Questions are asked before the parties are 
removed. 

Rev. W. L. C. SAMSON": Can I have a word? 

The MODERATOR: If we receive testimony from that 
side we should receive testimony from Brother Samson. 

Rev. W. L. C. SAMSON: In my rebuttal will I have op- 
portunity to question parties concerning this matter in Mc 
Keesport congregation? 

The MODERATOR: Certainly. 

Dr. McALLLSTER: Now. Mr. Moderator. I resume, and 
you will bear with me a little longer on account of this inter- 
ruption. 

I wish to charge personal responsibility upon the appel- 
lants for the disregard of this sentence. They have dis- 
regarded the sentence, as this shows conclusively to you. 



296 



STKJSOGRAPHIC REPORT. 



Suspended by a proper and competent court, they have 
nevertheless disregarded the sentence of suspension, and 
therefore they are personally responsible for doing so ; and 
this is in accordance with the law of the church. I only cite 
one authority, and that is in the case of Mr. Lusk. We find 
this immediately following the division of 1833. I might 
mention other cases, but I prefer to mention this, found on 
page 24, of the Minutes of Synod of that year, 1834: "Ee- 
solved, secondly, that inasmuch as Mr. Lusk, notwithstand- 
ing the decision of the court, did for some time continue to 
exercise the duties of the ministerial office as though no cen- 
sure had been inflicted, thereby leading one of our congre- 
gations into an act of rebellion, — and this is true in this case, 
— Mr. Lusk cannot be restored to his former standing without 
a Synodical review." And what has thus been maintained 
by our own Synod has been maintained by other Synods ; and 
it has been maintained in the case that I quoted to you from 
Moore's Digest and from Baird's Digest, page 133, that when 
there had been the discipline of the Presbyterian body exer- 
cised upon one of her ministers, and he had disregarded that 
discipline, a Congregational Association, not a Presbyterian 
court even, but a Congregational Association, said that for 
his violation of the sentence of the court, to which he was 
subject, they would not admit him to a place in their body 
until he had made satisfaction to the court whose sentence he 
had violated. 

I mention that as an example of the denominational court- 
esy that is due always, altogether apart from the question 
of whether the different denominations agree or not. The 
discourtesy shown Pittsburgh Presbytery has been inside of 
our body. It has been discourteous for these other judica- 
tories, like sessions, and for congregations that did not know 
anything about the proceedings in full or in detail, or that 
had heard an ex -parte statement — had heard from one side 
only, a highly colored, or discolored, narrative of the pro- 
ceedings — to jump to hasty conclusions, and send in con- 
demnations of the conduct of Pittsburgh Presbytery, and 
send men to sit here in this Court to pass judgment upon the 
Presbytery, practically instructed by the bodies that send 
them to find Pittsburgh Presbytery guilty, and so instructed 
before they knew the facts of the case in reference to this 
matter. ]STot only that discourtesy, but discourtesy outside of 
our body, which I once more bring before this Court; and I 
say that the fact that there has been discourtesy, should not 
weigh in your minds to the effect of showing you that as they 
regarded these men as if they were not suspended, therefore 
you, submitting to the judgment of the Christian world at 
large, as it has been put. should also regard these men as if 
they had not been suspended. 

Now I want to affirm the principle here, with all the 



SATURDAY, JUNE 6. 



297 



strength I can, as seen in the case, for example, of the Bap- 
tist minister referred to. There has been, in fact, a case of 
that kind, but I do not refer to it in detail. I simply adduce 
it in principle; but if the case is wanted, I can give the data 
in reference to it. A Baptist minister violated the law of his 
own church in reference to baptism. The question came up, 
Could another church that believed in infant baptism receive 
him? And the decision was that he had violated the covenant 
he had entered into as a Baptist minister, and was under obli- 
gation to go to the court whose rule he had violated, and ac- 
knowledge his mistake in violating the rule,— not acknowl- 
edge that he was wrong in believing in infant baptism, no- 
body would ask that; but that he had violated the rule and 
was under obligations to make acknowledgment. The due 
course for him would have been to come before the court and 
say: "I have changed my view on the subject of baptism ; I 
do not intend to do anything contrary to the law of the 
church, and I ask to be dismissed." If he had done that, 
there would have been no trouble in the case. He did not do 
that. While under the law, and in the bonds of the covenant, 
he violated the church's law, and then asked to be received 
while he was still a law-breaker, without having made any 
satisfaction for having broken the law. 

If such a person would come to the session of the Eighth 
street church to be admitted into the membership of the 
church, the church would not admit him, though it believes 
in his view on the subject of baptism. Of course, the matter 
of the ministerial function would not come in in this case. 
But I know, Mr. Moderator, that the Pittsburgh Presbytery 
would not admit a Baptist minister, however highly qualified, 
however free his moral character from all charges, if he were 
still under conviction of having violated the law of his own 
church, in a point in which we did not agree with the Baptist 
denomination. We should insist that he make satisfaction to 
his own body, and then come to be received into our church. 
In reference to a member of the Protestant Episcopal church, 
if he had violated a rule and canon of that church, though 
we did not agree with that rule and canon, he would be com- 
pelled by Pittsburgh Presbytery to go to his own denomina- 
tion and to the proper authority, and give satisfaction for 
having violated the law; and then he would be in condition 
to Come and be received into the Pittsburgh Presbytery of the 
Reformed Presbyterian church. And I think there are but 
few men and few courts, if they give the matter careful 
thought, that will disregard interdenominational courtesy on 
points like this, although interdenominational courtesy has 
been repeatedly disregarded, and by men whom I honcr, too. 
Let me say here that I did frankly and privately give my 
opinion to a dear brother where this had been disregarded. I 
told him to his face, what I have said here before this Court, 



298 



STENOGRAPHIC REPORT. 



that it was a violation of interdenominational courtesy. And 
I can but say, at any proper time, to any man's face, what I 
say here in public, and will say it to the dearest friend I have. 
It is a principle in all such cases, and applies to any man or 
any court that will thus violate the proprieties and usages, 
whether it be of the Baptist denomination, on the subject of 
opposing the law requiring- immersion; wether it be of the 
Protestant Episcopal church, on the subject f of opposing the 
law with regard to Episcopal ordination, or any other matter. 
We are bound as sister denominations of the church of Christ 
to have respect to each other's exercise of authority. If we 
do not, we then put a premium upon the violation of all 
■church laws. 

As my dear brother said,*) and said so effectively, the con- 
gregation, the pastor, the session, the Presbytery, the Synod, 
or the Assembly, that does this, that receives a law-breaker 
into it when he has not given satisfaction to the body with 
which he has been in covenant relations ; when he is taken in 
as a law-breaker, without giving satisfaction, enters into a 
covenant with that man that he may break the law in the new 
denomination. And mark my words, the men that are re- 
ceived in that way will in all probability prove that they have 
as little respect for the law of the church with which they 
have recently become connected, as for the law of the church 
with which they have been heretofore connected. 

And now I bring this^whole matter to a conclusion. The 
bearing of this point on the question of sustaining the appeals 
is just this : The Presbytery in its first judgment found these 
men guilty of pursuing a divisive course. It then proceeded 
to carry out what it could not hope to carry out otherwise. 
Its first judgment would not otherwise have been worth a 
snap of your fingers. It proceeded to carry out that judgment 
in a temporary suspension. That sentence has been dis- 
regarded. The men who have disregarded it, really had no 
right to be heard before this Court, until they had given full 
satisfaction for having violated the law of the church. They 
did not give full satisfaction ; and now when the question of 
sustaining the appeals comes up, this must be considered by 
you. If any of you have in your mind the idea that they 
ought to have made satisfaction which they have not made, 
that itself is sufficient for your own conscience to tell you that 
the appeals ought to be dismissed. And if they have given 
to your mind sufficient and satisfactory evidence of not having 
treated the court, under which they were, with contempt, or 
of having purged themselves of contempt, then the question 
still remains, whether there be ground of complaints of in- 
justice and wrong, and whether there be ground for these 



*) The Rev. Dr. T. P. Stevenson, in a discussion on the 
floor of Synod before the present trial came on. 



SATURDAY, JUNE 6. 



299 



appeals. You should still keep in view the fact of tueir hav- 
ing violated this act of suspension, and with that the whole 
course of procedure taken together, viewed as a complete 
case, as it has been insisted you should take everything into 
consideration ; and all these considerations must prove, as it 
seems to me, fully adequate for the reaching of the verdict 
that these appeals ought to be dismissed. 

Rev. J. R. J. MILLIGrAiST: May I ask a question just at 
this point. Did that Mr. Lusk preach in his own church or 
in another. 

Dr. MCALLISTER : I do not think it makes a bit of differ- 
ence ; to my mind there would not be a particle of difference. 

Rev. J. R. J. MILLIGrAN : I want to ask another question : 
To what effect was the resolution passed the other day after 
we had made our statements. 

Dr. R. J. GEORGE : I think these matters will come up 
afterwards. I do not think they necessarily come up now. 

(The Court then upon motion, duly seconded and carried, 
adjourned to meet Monday morning, June 8th, 1891, at 10:30 
o'clock, A, M.) 

MORNING SESSION. 

Monday, June 8, 1891. 
The MODERATOR: We have now finished hearing the 
defence of the Pittsburgh Presbytery by those appointed for 
that purpose. The appellants and complainants have the 
right to reply. They will remember, however, that they 
have not the privilege of bringing in any new matter but 
simply of replying to what has been said by the representa- 
tives of Presbytery. In the order in which they have addres- 
sed Synod before, we will call upon them again. Mr. A. W. 
McClurkin. 

Rev. A. W. McCLURKIN: Fathers and Brethren, I shall 
not weary you, if I can possibly help it, in my reply to what 
has been said. In the first place the Minute of Pittsburgh 
Presbytery concerning the statements made on the floor of 
Presbytery last October is false with respect to myself. That 
Minute has been read here again and again. You know what 
it states. It states that these persons, naming the seven, 
made remarks defending their connection with the East End 
Meeting and Platform. 

I desire to recall to your minds the circumstances under 
which I made my remark last October. You all know that at 
that time I was pastor of the New Alexandria congregation. 
There were resolutions passed by that congregation which 
were before Presbytery at that time. Of course, I would have 
that personal matter more clearly and definitely uppermost 
in my mind at that time, and I made remarks at that meeting 
of Presbytery concerning that, as that seemed to be a matter 
of regret or worry in the congregation, viz., that I, or that 



300 



STENOGRAPHIC REPORT. 



congregation, was represented in the minority in the last 
meeting of Synod, and not in the majority. It matters not 
how often that Minute may have been read in Presbytery r 
how often it may have been discussed in Presbytery, if the 
fact is that the Minute is false. All these other questions do 
not contain very much force in them if the fact remains that 
that Minute is false. 

Again, in the second place, it was the business of Pitts- 
burgh Presbytery to have a correct record, especially if the 
Court used that record as evidence. I repeat, it was the busi- 
ness of Pittsburgh Presbytery to have a correct record con- 
cerning those statements. 

I desire to say here that there was no effort made to have 
my statements taken down or preserved, except the earnest 
effort of the representatives of the press there at that time. 
There was no effort made on the part of Pittsburgh Presby- 
tery to preserve my statement. And I wish to say that if I am 
to be condemned on my statements made at the Pittsburgh 
Presbytery in October, I wish to be condemned on those 
statements. If they are the evidence against me, it is the 
business of Pittsburgh Presbytery to produce that evidence 
against me, and I again ask that they do produce those state- 
ments. And if I am to be condemned on them then condemn 
me. If I am worthy of condemnation I shall submit to the 
authority of the Court condemning me. I certainly shall not 
object if I am worthy of being condemned on the statements 
made in Presbytery last October. 

It seems to me, and I think it would seem to every fair 
minded man, that the person who is to appear as prosecutor 
in that case, must produce the testimony which he has, or 
which he alleges that he has, or which they allege they have, 
against me,— my own statements on the floor of Presbytery 
last October. 

It has been stated here, I think I understood the one stating 
it clearly, that Presbytery could have suspended all of us im- 
mediately upon our making our statements last October. I 
heartily and sincerely wish, if Pittsburgh Presbytery could 
have suspended me immediately upon my making my state- 
ment upon the floor of Presbytery last October, that they had 
done so, and stood before the world condemning me upon 
my statements, and then could I have stood before the world 
condemned upon my statements made upon the floor of Pres- 
bytery last October. 

But again it has been urged and re-urged again and again, 
that I certainly heard the Minute read, that false Minute 
read, last October, or that I heard it upon other occasions. 
I can say here, after having thought over it and thought 
over, that I cannot recollect of ever having heard that Minute 
read until my trial in January, and then when the admissi- 
bility of the libel was being considered, and the admissibility 



MONDAY, JUNE 8. 



301 



of the testimony, I called for the reading of the Minute con- 
cerning the statements that were made in October. And it is 
strange to me that it flashed upon me while I was on my feet 
in the presence of Presbytery that there ought to be some 
record of the statements that were made in Presbytery, 
though I could not remember that there was ever any Min- 
ute made of it, or that I had heard it read. That flashed upon 
me just at the time, and I asked that the record, or whatever 
Minute there might be, should be read then and there. Now, 
I do not say that I was away from Presbytery when the Min- 
ute was read. It may have been read when I was there, but 
I cannot recollect of ever having heard it. It may be strange 
but still that is true. 

But again, 1 declined to answer the Moderator's question, 
which question he put after I had signified my declinature of 
the authority of the Court. I declined to answer his question 
because of the force of my declinature. It is true that it was 
shortly before noon that I gave notice I declined the authority 
of the Pittsburgh Presbytery. It is also true that I gave 
verbally the substance of the reasons of my declinature of 
Pittsburgh Presbytery, but had not committed those reasons 
to writing. Pittsburgh Presbytery was kind enough to dis- 
miss for recess, and allowed me the interval to prepare my 
reasons for declinature. I prepared those reasons for declin- 
ature, and in order, as I stated to Presbytery, that Presbytery 
aad the audience might understand the reasons for my de- 
clinature thoroughly, I began stating the reasons that led up 
to my entering my declinature of the authority of the Pitts- 
burgh Presbytery. As I was doing so, the Moderator arose, 
reading from the Book, and stated, that he had omitted or 
neglected a certain very important part. 

Dr. MCALLISTER : Not neglected; omitted. 

Rev. A. W. McCLURKIN" : Omitted a certain very import- 
ant part in the proceedings; and he then proceeded to in- 
quire, not as would have been expected, "Have you been 
guilty of following a divisive course?" but his question was, 
"Were you or were you not at the East End Meeting?" It 
seems to me that, already having given notice of my declin- 
ature of the authority of the Pittsburgh Presbytery, the Mod- 
erator, so far as I was concerned, had no authority to ques- 
tion me at that time. 

There are some other incidents that might be related here, 
though 1 do not know whether this would be the proper time 
to relate them or not. However, since the Moderator of Pitts- 
burgh Presbytery has spoken already concerning the matter, 
it seems to me this would be the proper time for me to speak. 

The Moderator of Pittsburgh Presbytery began to question 
me concerning the facts as he said, "Were you or were you 
not at the East End Meeting?" I began to say (and I do not 
think there was a half a minute hesitation or pause between 



302 



STENOGRAPHIC REPORT. 



the question and the answer). "Any one who can read the 
libel understands that it charges that on October 15th I made 
the statement that I did attend the East End Meeting, but I 
did not get any further than, *"Any one who can read can 
understand the charge of the libel." when he interrupted me. 
and said. "Answer me: Where you or were you not at the 
East End Meeting?*" I immediately, with not more than a 
half a minute of hesitation, proceeded to repeat that the 
charge in the libel was, that I stated upon the floor of Pres- 
bytery last October that I was at the East End Meeting. He 
interrupted at almost the same stage in my answer. -Answer 
me Yes or ]STo : Were you or were" you not at the East End 
Meeting?" I answered, "I'decline to answer." It is some- 
what strange that the Moderator, looking me in the eye. 
could see another one, who was said to be my confidential 
friend and adviser, somewhere about half way down the 
church, wriggling and turning red and white by turns. 

Again, concerning this Very point, it was stated that I made 
no remarks concerning the admissibility of the testimony 
when the admissibility was being discussed. You will re- 
member that I stated before this Court when the admissibility 
of the libel was being considered that I called for the read- 
ing of that Minute. Perhaps it was just immediately after 
this, or perhaps it was with a little delay after this (1 am not 
certain whether it was just immediately after this, but it was 
very soon after), that the Moderator began putting the ques- 
tion on the admissibility of the libel. I interrupted him and 
. said I had something to say concerning the admissibility of 
the libel, especially concerning the admissibility of the testi- 
mony, and I stated there that the testimony was not admis- 
sible, inasmuch as the testimony in the libel was false; after 
the relevancy of the libel had been considered. I was re- 
stating grounds which would lead up to my declinature, and 
then the Moderator began to question me. which, it seems to 
me, any person would acknowledge was an unauthorized 
questioning at that time. 

I think, these points are clearly before you all. I think you 
can all comprehend them. If you cannot, it seems to me. I 
ought to repeat and repeat them again and again. It has been 
asked frequently, why I did not have a correct Minute, why I 
did not get that Minute corrected before last .January. I do 
not know whether this is the proper place to inquire why in 
the world Pittsburgh Presbytery did not have the motion 
corrected before April. I refer to the motion or Minute that 
is included in the suspension from the exercise of the ministry 
in the Reformed Presbyterian church. It might be pertinent 
to inquire why Pittsburgh Presbytery did not" have "the Re- 
formed Presbyterian church" stricken out from the Minute 
on the record, thereby getting the record corrected. If it is 
pertinent to inquire why I did not have that other Minute 



MONDAY, JUNE 8. 



303- 



corrected before January, why in the world did not Pitts- 
burgh Presbytery have this Minute corrected before April? 
There were two or three meetings between December and. 
April. 

Besides, it seems to me that I, having already entered my 
declinature of the authority of the Pittsburgh Presbytery, my 
answering the Moderator's' question either k 'yes" or "no"" 
would have vitiated the force of my declinature. It seems to 
me that the Moderator was exactly correct when he said upon 
my answering "I decline to answer," k ' You are consistent 
with your declinature." It seems to me the Moderator wa» 
right at that time in so answering. It seems to me still that 
I was right in declining to answer. 

But again, I wish you to notice : That I voted for the adop- 
tion and publication of the East End Platform not a member 
of the L ittsburgh Presbytery can testify. I will turn it round- 
so you will get the force of it. Not a member of the Pitts- 
burgh Presbytery can testify that I voted for the adoption 
and publication of the East End Platform. Shall I begin in 
the middle and go both ways? That I voted for the adoption 
and publication of the East End Platform not a member of 
the Pittsburgh Hresbytery can testify. Further than this,, 
that I said on the floor of Pittsburgh Presbytery that I ap- 
proved of the East End Platform, or that I attended the East 
End Meeting, not a member of Pittsburgh Presbytery can 
testify . 

Now I think you will understand all that clearly and dis- 
tinctly. It is unnecessary for me to advert to a matter which 
has been referred to and adverted to again and again here on 
this platform, and that is, concerning the contempt of the 
Court. It will be unnecessary for me to say anything about 
that here to-day. It seems to me that that matter can be at- 
tended to by abler men than myself. But I wish to say : If 
you have reason to believe that I attended the East End 
Meeting, and adopted, or was responsible, so far as I individ- 
ually was concerned, for the adoption and publication of the 
East End Platform, — if you have reason to believe all that r 
then let me ask you to libel me for that and ask me the ques- 
tion and see how long you will have to wait for an answer. 
Summon your witnesses, and present as many corroborative 
witnesses as you may please, and see how long you will have 
to delay for your answer. 

I ask you then if you consider it worth your while to pre- 
sent an admissible libel against me, then try me on that. Let 
me stand before the world* as condemned for my own sins, if 
I am to be condemned for my own sins, let me stand out in 
the sight of the world as condemned for what I have said if I 
am to be condemned for what 1 have said. If I am to be con- 
demned for what other men may have said, then condemn me 
for it. But if I am to be condemned for what I have said r 



304 



STENOGRAPHIC REPORT. 



condemn me for what I have said. It seems to me nothing 
but right and just that the words of all the young men, if 
those words are to be used afterwards as testimony, should be 
recorded as testimony. That seems to me nothing but right 
and just. I care not whether the six be standing together 
upon identically the same ground, their words ought to be 
recorded, their testimony ought to be presented in the Court; 
and it seems to me, if 1 am to be condemned on my testi- 
mony, I ought to be condemned on that and my words 
recorded. 

(The Moderator announced that the next speaker in the 
order in which the young men had previously spoken, was 
Rev. H. W. Reed, but Mr. Reed was not present in the Court, 
and therefore he requested Rev. E. M. Milligan to proceed 
with his address.) 

Rev. E. M. MILLIG-AlSr : Fathers and Brethren, it was as- 
serted at the beginning of this trial that this Court had never 
heard Presbytery's side of the case. I submit that that state- 
ment can never again be made here. This Court has listened 
attentively for two long days to two of the ablest men of the 
Reformed Presbyterian church, men of acknowledged mental 
ability, men of singular eloquence, men of strong minds ; and 
whatever case Pittsburgh Presbytery has, has been proven to 
this Court, and is before this Court at this time r in the 
strongest light that it can possibly be presented. 

I ask you, Fathers and Brethren, to notice also the two 
spirits that were manifested in the presenting of the Presby- 
tery's defence. There was on the one hand the spirit of the 
Gospel, loving, kind and gentle; there was on the other 
hand the spirit of the law, implacable, unmerciful, demand- 
ing justice. I do not call attention to this to criticise either 
the one or the other; I simply ask you to note the fact that 
the first spirit was not manifested in the trials that took place 
at Wilkinsburg, from the beginning to the end. The spirit 
of the law prevailed and governed every step of that trial. 

The Covenanter church to-day has reached a crisis in her 
history, and it depends under God upon you to determine 
what shall be her destiny — the spirit of the Gospel or the 
spirit of the law. With these preliminary remarks let me pass 
on to review the defence that has been made by these breth- 
ren on behalf of Pittsburgh Presbytery. 

The first speaker alluded very feelingly to the sacredness of 
the ministerial character. He called the attention of this 
Court to the fact that he had been feeling wounded at the 
terrible wrong that had been done him by my brother casting 
for a moment a suspicion and a stain on his character. Has 
he forgotten the sacredness which ministerial character at- 
taches to us? Has he forgotten that the same emotion that 
swayed in his heart, that rent his heart, that caused anguish 
in him as he stood before this Court; has been rending the 



MONDAY, JUNE 8. 



305 



hearts of his dear young brethren for the last six months, be- 
cause of the cruel wrong that has been done to them, because 
of the unjust suspicion and the false sentence that has been 
passed upon them? 

He claims that at every step of this trial Pittsburgh Pres- 
bytery has been very careful to preserve a distinction between 
the crime with which we have been charged, and on which 
we have been suspended from the ministry, and the fact that 
there has nothing been charged against our moral character. 
Now, Brethren, let us look at this. 

We were charged with the crime of following a divisive 
course. Analyze the charge. There is in it contained the 
charge of insubordination ; there is the charge of covenant 
breaking; there is the charge of breach of official trust, all 
included in the statement of following a divisive course. And 
I ask you, Fathers and Brethren, is it possible that a man can 
be insubordinate to the authority of the Court of Christ's 
house, which is over him in the Lord, — can he possibly be a 
covenant breaker, can he possibly be seeking to lead the 
church into defection,— and his moral character be unstained? 
I maintain that this distinction is a distinction without a dif- 
ference. 

He refers, as an example, at the same time to the eminent 
Dr. Briggs, and the treatment that he has received at the 
hands of brethren of the General Assembly of the Presbyte- 
rian church. But I submit that the cases are in nowise anal- 
ogous. The Presbyterian Assembly has not libelled Dr. 
Briggs for following a divisive course. They have not charg- 
ed him with a heinous sin and scandal. They have not sus- 
pended him from the ministry, and refused him communion 
and fellowship in the church of the living God. But that is 
what Pittsburgh Presbytery has done with us. The distinc- 
tion sounds to me very much like that which is made by 
Dickens to appear in his Pickwick Papers, — they have charg- 
ed us with being guilty of a heinous sin and scandal only in a 
Pickwickian sense. 

But I submit that, so far as our characters are concerned, it 
has gone out to the world that in the Keformed Presbyterian 
church are seven ministers guilty of a heinous scandal 
and sin. 

He justifies the action of Presbytery by the resolution 
passed by Synod at its last meeting, which was to the effect 
that Synod emphatically condemns this discussion of our 
principles and enjoins Presbyteries everywhere to see that it 
is discontinued. Well, Presbytery in this case appears before 
this S>ynod for a justification as a very obedient child, bow- 
ing humbly and submissively to the will of this superior 
court, and in a spirit of subordination, carrying out the will 
of this Court, and I admire that spirit. 

But, Brethren, this same Presbytery that is so submissive 



306 



STENOGRAPHIC KEPC RT. 



in this case forgets to tell you that that act of the last Synod 
was only passed by a majority of two votes; well, there are 
other acts of Sj^nod regarding the ordination of deacons — 

(The Moderator called the speaker to order.) 

Mr. Moderator, are you calling me to order? 

The MODERATOR : Yes, sir. 

Rev. E. M. MILLIGAN : On what ground? 

The MODERATOR : It is the introduction of new matter. 

Rev. E. M. MILLIGAlsr : I think this is simply showing 
that it is not a command to justify Pittsburgh Presbytery's 
course. 

The MODERATOR : The Moderator thinks it is the intro- 
duction of matter that is impertinent. 

Rev. D. S. FARIS : I believe the defenders of the Pitts- 
burgh Presbvtery introduced the fact. 

The MODERATOR: They introduced the fact; but the 
Moderator's idea was the introduction of a charge against the 
Presbytery in this connection that in another case they were 
not obeying a decision of Synod was not pertinent to this case. 

Rev. E. M. MILLIGAJST : The point was, that this act was 
the motive inspiring Pittsburgh Presbytery's action, and that 
Pittsburgh Presbytery would have acted in any other case ; 
and I am simply showing, sir, that this was not the motive 
that justified Presbytery's act, or led to it; and I maintain 
that it is pertinent to the question. 

Mr. D. TORRENS : I have a Minute, as I took it down, 
that Dr. George said that the Presbytery was acting under 
the authority of the Synod. 

The MODERATOR : That is correct. The Moderator does 
not dispute that fact ; but the point the Moderator makes is 
that the introduction at this point of a charge against the 
Presbytery, impugning the motives of Presbytery, in this 
connection, is not in order, especially by bringing up cases 
where the speaker says the Presbyter}' has not been obeying 
the decisions of Synod. That is the Moderator's point. The 
speaker has a perfect right to reply to the point which Dr. 
George makes. 

Rev. E. M. MILLIGAN: I am not bringing in charges 
against the Presbytery. I am simply asserting the fact to 
show that here were other acts of Synod that Presbytery en- 
tirely ignored, and that Presbytery went entirely contrary to; 
and consequently, when they justify themselves on the fact of 
another act of a similar character, it is a pretty weak defence. 

I will pass that, however, but it (• ounds to me very much 
like the case of a boy whose father commanded him to do two 
or three things he did not do, and when his father told his 
younger brother to divide his candy, went and took the candy 
from his brother and spanked him for not offering it; and 
then when his father told him he ought not to h^ve done it 
he said, "My dear father, I did that in obedience to your 



MONDAY, JUNE 8. 



307 



command." It seems to me, that is about the position Pres- 
bytery has taken in this case. It was a stronger brother. 
But when it meets this Synod, it is very submissive to the 
Court that is over it in the Lord. Again, the action of Pres- 
bytery was taken because of certain specific, definite acts re- 
ported in the daily papers. These acts are brought forward. 
There was: First, the fact of a meeting at the East End; 
Second, the faqt that this was a secret meeting; Third, that 
this secret meeting had resulted in an organization; Fourth,, 
the fact that this secret meeting which had organized had 
formulated a Platform of principles ; Fifth, that this Plat- 
form of principles was being circulated throughout the 
church. 

On the same authority he should have gone on and added 
an additional fact that was before the Presbytery, viz., that 
this secret organization, formed at the East End with its Plat- 
form which it was circulating, was designed to destroy the 
church because all these six facts were reported in the papers- 

Now, I ask you to notice that there was not a single mem- 
ber of Presbytery that took the least trouble to verify one of 
these facts. Here were the charges made in a paper. You 
have already heard from the defence that the papers are 
utterly unreliable; that these papers misrepresent every- 
thing'. That is when the shoe is on the other foot. But when 
they'come out with statements with regard to our secret or- 
ganization, designed to destroy the Covenanter church, it is- 
sufficient evidence to justify Pittsburgh Presbytery coming- 
at men, ministers of Jesus Christ, with a threat of discipline. 

Let me ask you to notice again, that it may be said, how 
could they verify these reports? There wre no names given 
in the paper. Ah, but there were. And more than that, the 
Secretary of that Meeting, when he sent the Platform of 
principles to certain members of this Court, signed his name 
to that as Secretary. Was it not within the reach of the Pres- 
bytery to write to the Secretary of that Meeting, and ask if 
these facts that are stated in the paper, were true before he 
published that in his magazine, and began to make certain 
statements on the evidence of newspaper reports? I submit, 
Fathers and Brethren, if that course had been pursued and 
the Secretary had been written to in regard to that Meeting,, 
all that was to be known of that Meeting would have been 
freely and willingly placed in the hands of those who sought 
the information. But that was not done. 

On the testimony of these unreliable newspapers, reports of 
a sensational character, all these grave charges were at once 
greedily seized upon and sent broadcast throughout the 
church. Notwithstanding the fact that these charges that 
were specified in the newspapers, were of a most serious 
character, notwithstanding the fact that they reflected not 
only upon the sacredness of ministerial character, but also 



308 



STENOGRAPHIC REPORT. 



upon the honor of men who were with them brothers in 
Jesus Christ, these same men did not hesitate to vouch for 
the truthfulness of these statemeuts. which were copied into 
the call for that Elders* Convention over the signatures of 
these same men. And the report was sent out through the 
church that it appears that certain brethren have done so and 
so. and here is our signature to vouch for it. 

They went further than that. There was not only this 
statement made in the call for the Elders* Convention, which 
was voucaed for by prominent ministers and elders in the 
church, within the bounds of this Presbytery, but they also 
copied them into the church magazines, again scattering 
them among all the people within our community, certified 
to again by their signatures as being certain that such a thing 
was being done : although they had no authority for it but 
these same unreliable newspaper reports. 

Therefore I submit that under the circumstances, if there 
has been any injury clone to tbe Eeformed Presbyterian 
church, if the Eeformed Presbyterian church is to-day in 
danger of being rent because of these statements, that unless 
Presbytery is capable of sustaining the charge that there was 
a secret meeting, that there was an organization, that there 
was a purpose to lead the church to violate her solemn cove- 
nant and forsake her sworn allegiance to Christ, her King, — 
if Presbytery cannot substantiate those grave charges, then I 
maintain that Presbytery is responsible for all the injury that 
has been wrought in our beloved Covenanter Zion. ]S"ow 
then, notice, that after the church had been thoroughly 
aroused by this misrepresentation, and shaken to her deepest 
foundations, then Presbytery convenes, and at once there are 
certain facts brought to the notice of Presbytery. The facts 
are brought to the notice of Pittsburgh Presbytery in the 
memorial from the Elders' Convention reiterating these 
serious charges. Facts coming from congregations where we 
had never preached, where we had never been, charging us 
with these serious crimes and calling upon Presbytery to 
take some action to arrest this kind of work within the church. 

Did any of these memorials contain the names of witnesses? 
Did any of these memorials contain the name of a single wit- 
ness that would testify to these charges? Did they point to 
our congregations that were being divided, that were being 
broken up? Did they point to a single place where there was 
trouble because of our views? Did they refer to a single in- 
stance to show that there was active, aggressive work being 
carried on to carry out this damnable purpose of leading the 
church into defection? Xot in a single memorial. The 
charges were made in these memorials, but on what did they 
rest? On the same newspaper reports. Then Presbytery 
came at us with the threat of discipline, asking for a state- 
ment. Reference has been made to the fact that when the 



MONDAY, JUNE 8. 



309 



Committee on Discipline at Presbytery reported, they recom- 
mended that there be a season of prayer, and that after that 
certain brethren be permitted to state anything they desired 
in regard to their attendance at the East End Meeting, and 
their formulating the Platform; and that during this hour of 
devotion and towards its close I gave out the 15th Psalm. I 
did. And part of that report of the Committee on Discipline 
was read in your hearing to show what a terrible spirit I 
manifested when I asked the Court to sing that Psalm. The 
part of the report read in your hearing referred to the warm 
affection which these brethren had for the dear young breth- 
ren, who were thus and so guilty. I did not give out the 
Psalm because of any warm affection in that report of that 
Committee on Discipline. But mark you, Brethren, that 
these charges of covenant breaking, of insubordination, of 
heresy, of following a divisive course, of breach of official 
trust, of almost every crime that a minister of the church 
could be guilty of, were made on the fact that certain breth- 
ren had voted in the minority, on the fact that certain breth- 
ren were known to be the friends of Christian union in the 
Reformed Presbyterian church, — because of these facts they 
were indirectly charged with all these crimes. Is it any 
wonder that 1 asked the Court to sing the 15th Psalm in 
regard to those who would be in the house_of God, — men who 
do not slander with their tongues, nor to their friends do hurt? 

I tell you, Brethren, I felt the slander. I felt that Presby- 
tery could have found out all she asked and all she knows to- 
day, without charging the dear young brethren with all these 
crimes, and that without the slightest evidence that any one 
of them was true. And if there was spirit awakened, if there 
was a spirit of resentment called forth, it was because of these 
slanderous charges indirectly made against the sacredness of 
ministerial character in violation of the fraternal bonds of the 
ministry. 

But was there any evidence before the Court to prove these 
five charges that the defence has brought forward as being 
the facts with which they had to deal? I have already shown 
you that there were declarations with regard to these facts 
made in these memorials. But is a declaration of a fact a 
fact? A great many things may be asserted, and yet I should 
be very loathe to take up that assertion and put it forth as a 
fact, especially when it reflected upon ministerial integrity. 

I maintain that Presbytery, when it met, had no fact what- 
ever before it. Oh, yes*! the report of the Committee on Dis- 
cipline came in, and we were given an opportunity to state 
all that we knew, or all that we wished to state, in order that 
by a full, frank and open expression of our views we might 
be brought to see eye to eye, and peace and harmony be re- 
stored to the church. Now there was one of the young men 
at once said, "Not a word, not a word; here are all these 



310 



STENOGRAPHIC REPORT. 



charges being made against you, and this is simply a trap to 
get evidence to prove these charges. It is simply an attempt 
to have you say something that will commit yourselves and 
justify them in proceeding against you.'' When this state- 
ment was made, 1 said, "I have nothing to conceal ; if 1 had 
done anything wrong, if I have in any wise been guilty of any 
crime against the law or order of the Keformed Presbyterian 
church, I am willing that the worst shall be known." And 
hence, when the opportunity was offered, we, every one of us, 
went forward freely, of our own accord, as the defence have 
stated, to make statements. 

Now we might have given Presbytery an endless amouDt of 
trouble to prove that any one of us was there. They had no 
evidence, they had no testimony, and if we were such a blood- 
thirsty secret organization, seeking to destroy the life of the 
very church, it seems to me that we would have resorted to 
some of the methods of these blood-thirsty organizations, and 
we would have given Presbytery a chance to prove to us be- 
ing there, without our aid. But we did not feel the need of 
that, Brethren. We went forward and we told fully, frankly 
and openly all that we knew in regard to that East End Meet- 
ing and its Platform ; not with the purpose and with the hope 
of justifying our opinions — for it was not a question of that; 
the question was not whether our opinions were right or 
wrong, and that was not the time to argue whether those 
opinions were right or wrong; we went there, I say, not to 
justify our opinion but to meet Presbytery and, if possible, by 
this full, frank and open statement to restore peace and con- 
fidence to the church that we loved. 

But now about the statements that were brought forth on 
that occasion. We admitted frankly the East End Meeting. 
We admitted frankly that we had had a hand in formulating 
its Platform. We admitted that we adhered to the opinions 
that were set forth in that Platform as being an honest ex- 
pression of our understanding in regard to the teaching of our 
standards. And then as to our purpose we told Presbytery 
the fact that we were misunderstood, that we were misrepre- 
sented, that the report was going around throughout the 
church that we were opposed to the principle of political dis- 
sent, or were opposed to the kingly claims of the Lord Jesus 
Christ; and that we had put forth that Platform for no other 
purpose then to correct these misrepresentations, and to show 
to all concerned exactly where we stood. There, then, were 
the facts before Pittsburgh Presbytery, and for the first time 
since this trouble began were there any facts before Pitts- 
burgh Presbytery. 

I submit that these facts of the East End Meeting, the 
formulating of that Platform, the adhering to its principles, 
and putting them forth simply to correct misrepresentations, 
and to show all concerned where we stood, — were not of a 



MONDAY, JUNE 8. 



311 



nature to justify a charge of our being guilty of the heinous 
and scandalous sin of pursuing divisive courses. And Pres- 
bytery knew it. There, then, was the time for Presbytery to 
arrest this trouble. 

There, then, was the time for Presbytery to quiet the fears 
that had been aroused in the church, and to call back its false 
statements and misrepresentations, and by taking a manly 
course to pour oil upon the troubled waters. Was there a 
man in Pittsburgh Presbytery great enough to see the fact 
and seek to undo the harm that had already been done by this 
false and slanderous accusation? Yes, there was one, and that 
man I have already referred to, — Dr. J. W. Sproull. 

When our statements had been candidly made to Presby- 
tery, Dr. Sproull arose with a resolution to the effect that 
these brethren had been misunderstood, and that from their 
statements it was evident that it was only a difference of 
opinion existing between them, and this whole case should be 
transferred to Synod for its settlement, on condition that the 
young men would agree to hold their opinions in reserve until 
Syaod had settled the question. I submit to you. Fathers and 
Brethren, that there was a settlement of this difficulty. Had 
Presbytery acted on that suggestion, I would not have been 
here to-day, and these my dear brethren would not have been 
here to-day with me. pleading with our fathers and brethren 
to vindicate us from the crime, or intended crime, of bringing 
all this trouble upon the church of Jesus Christ, the church of 
our birth, the church that we love. Oh, no! Was that reso- 
lution offered to us? Other leaders in the Pittsburgh Presby- 
tery at once arose and opposed it. They said it must be 
stronger. Dr. Willson also offered a resolution of a temperate 
character, and either of those resolutions would have been 
satisfactory to us. and would have settled this trouble and 
brought the matter up to Synod for the calm discussion of the 
interpretation of the standards and the doctrines, instead of, 
as it is to-day, brothers pitted against brothers, the one seek- 
ing to defend their characters, the other seeking to drag them 
in the mire. Oh, yes! The resolutions were not acceptable 
to the leaders of Pittsburgh Presbytery. And so another res- 
olution was introduced by the Moderator, that no man out- 
side the church of Rome could sign. And there for the first 
time any of the young men made objection. I arose for one 
and said, "I will never subscribe to such a statement; I will 
never accept such resolutions.* ' Consequently we opposed a 
peaceable settlement of the difficulty. 

While we have this subject before us, in order to conserve 
as much time as possible, let us take up the separate facts the 
defenders of Pittsburgh Presbytery have brought here as jus- 
tifying their action, and see how far they are true, and how 
fa- they cm be substantiated. And in order to save time, I 



312 



STENOGRAPHIC REPORT. 



will consider all the facts made by each of the speakers under 
the various statements of facts that have been adduced. 

What proof has Pittsburgh Presbytery that our Meeting at 
the East End was a secret meeting? For I maintain that the 
facts, and the only facts, that would have justified the course 
of Pittsburgh Pres lytery, would have been the clearest evi- 
dence that there was an organization formed, whose purpose 
was to lead the church into defection and to overthrow the 
principles of our church. 

Now, these are the statements, and Presbyteiy claims that 
these are the facts that were brought before them. What 
evidence, then, can either of these defendants bring forward 
to substantiate the fact that there was a secret meeting*? The 
first speaker alleges: First, that it was given out as secret; 
Second, that in some sense it must be secret because so little 
is known of the place of meeting, of the time of the Meeting, 
of those who attended the Meeting, or of those who were its 
officers. Aid he avers. tha< the Platform, the only thing 
that should not have been made public, is about all they 
know in regard to it, everything else being covered with a 
veil of mystery, and no one can find out what took pface. 
Here is the evidence, then, that Ave had a secret meeting. 

The other defendant brings forward additional evidence as 
follows : First, the essential evils of a secret society were 
there. Or else he cannot understand how any one could feel 
constrained, or restrained, from telling all he knew about 
what took place at that Meeting; Second, the society will 
continue to be secret until he gets hold of its Minutes. Here, 
then, we have the evidence of a secret organization. 

Just at this point let me say that, when charges were going 
around throughout the church of a secret meeting, and mem- 
bers of the Court were whispering to each other of a secret 
meeting, that T arose when it came my time to speak in my 
defence, and I began to take up this matter of se crecy to show 
that the organization, if it were an organization, wab in no 
sense a secret one. and what was the result? Why one of the 
members of the Court at once aro e and said, "We do not be- 
lieve that there was a secret meeting." He said it was non- 
sense to talk about that Meeting as being a secret meeting, 
that it was a private meeting, and any one has a right to have 
a private meeting. I said, "Very well, Mr. Moderator, if it is 
understood by this Court that we are not charged with hold- 
ing a secret meeting, then I will pass that point and say 
nothing further about it/' I asked, if there was any objec- 
tion in the Court, and there was no objection, and 1 dropped 
the subject at that time. But now these defenders of Pitts- 
burgh Presbytery, in their desperation to uphold and justify 
a course which is without parallel in the history of Protestant 
Presbyterianism. grasp at this straw of a secret organization 
and come to try before this Court to prejudice the minds of 



MONDAY, JUNE 8. 



313 



its members by poisoning- them against us with the thought 
that we were a secret organization. 

Now let us look at these statements that were made to jus- 
tify the secrecy of this organization. First, let me ask, are all 
these statements true? Certainly not. There is not a member 
of this Court that does not know where that Meeting was 
held. It was held in the East End church. There is not a 
member of this Court that does not know when that Meeting 
was held. It was held on July 15th. There is not a member 
of this Court who does not know who its officers were. Kev. 
J. W. Carson was its chairman, and the Kev. H. W. Temple 
was the Secretary. There is not a member but what has 
heard once and again asserted in open court the purpose of 
that Meeting; that it was a meeting for prayer and consulta- 
tion which resulted in the formulating of this Platform of 
principles, to be sent forth to correct current misrepresenta- 
tions and misunderstandings of our position. Is not that true? 
Every member of this Court knows that much at least on the 
testimony of ministers of Jesus Christ, whose moral charac- 
ters are unsullied, according to the statements of the defend- 
ants. Every one of those ministers has once and again as- 
serted that this was all that Meeting amounted to. 

But ah, you say, how about the other one that attended 
that Meeting? How about those Minutes? Well, let us con- 
sider the second piece of evidence to justify the secrecy of 
that Meeting, which was brought forward by the second de- 
fendant, viz., that the essential elements of a secret society 
were there. On what does he base that statement? He can- 
not get hold of the Minutes, and he cannot find who else was 
there besides the men who are suspended in full view between 
heaven and earth. 

I maintain that this same thing might be true of any soci- 
ety, or bank directors, or of any private business concern. 
One day last week the Moderator of Pittsburgh Presbytery 
called a meeting of that body together, and one of the report- 
ers of a daily paper went up and asked if the meeting was 
called for any special purpose. The reply was, ' l Yes, to at- 
tend to its own business." 

I submit that if the evidence, which has been adduced in 
this Court, is evidence of a secret society, then that reporter 
is a competent witness to the fact that Pittsburgh Presbytery 
is a secret society. And why? Because he cannot find out 
anything about its place of meeting. He does not kr ow 
when it will meet. He could not find out what they were go- 
ing to meet for. He does not know who its officers are. He 
cannot, for the Sife of him, see its Minute*. A secret organi- 
zation ! Ah, the essential evils of a secret organization we 
have had illustrated on the floor of this Court! Incidentally 
I will refer at this point to a statement made by one of the 
defendants. He says that at the meeting of the judiciary the 



314 



STENOGRAPHIC REPORT. 



Rev. Mr. Temple asked him to step outside for a conversa- 
tion. 

Rev. D. C. MARTIN: Mr. Moderator, I think opportunities 
have sometimes been allowed for explanations. The Minutes 
of that Meeting are here, and none of the reporters ever ap- 
plied for them. They are not concealed at all and anybody 
■can see them that wants to. 

Rev. E. M. MILLIGAN : When the defendants were speak- 
ing, it was insisted upon that they should not be interrupted, 
And I ask that the same courtesy be extended to me. 

Rev. D. MARTIN : It is only that wrong impressions be 
not given that I interrupted you. 

Rev. E. M. MILLLGAN : I reply that when I wished to 
make a correction [ was told I would have a chance in rebut- 
tal. The defence has the last address to this Court, and they 
-can correct any false impressions that I make. Now we have 
had illustration on the floor of this Court of what I consider 
the essential evil of a secret organization. Mr. Temple in- 
vited one of the members of Ghat Committee or Commission 
to please step outside in order that he might consult with 
him in regard to certain matters. The gentlemen went out- 
side, and according to his own statement, Mr. Temple's first 
words to him were these, "May I tell you something in con- 
fidence*?" What was that something? Murder? No, he didn't 
know what it was, but he said 4 -yes-." "Yes, you may te!l me 
something in confidence. " The gentleman then proceeded to 
tell him that there was an organization formed at the East 
End Meeting, and bound him that he would not use that in 
any way as evidence against him, and that he would not 
mention the fact in the Court, or in the Committee, to the 
prejudice ef these young men. 

Here we have this terrible itnperium in imperio brought to 
the knowledge of this member of the Court. Does he repu- 
diate the thought of sealing his lips? No, he accepted it. He 
accepted it, although to-day it is the abominable thing that 
God loathes, and that is going to destroy this church; al- 
though it is brought to his knowledge, and although as a 
member of a co irt of Christ's house he is under ordination 
vows not to use any private knowledge to prejudice the case 
in rendering a decision; he is under a moral obligation to 
■come before this Court, bragging that his lips were sealed 
until the person who bound him to secrecy, broke the seal. 
Then his lips were opened. 

There, Brethren, is one of the essential evils of a secret 
society. The Mafia of New Orleans would not demand any- 
thing more of such a man. and he could become a member on 
no stronger pledge than that. The binding of ourselves not 
to reveal, and to always conceal, is an essential evil of a secret 
organization. If it can be shown that the members at the 
J£ast End Meeting bound themselves, either by oath or by 



MONDAY, JUNE 8. 



315 



solemn promise to maintain secrecy, to not speak of what took 
place in that Meeting, never to give out to the world the 
names of those who attended it. to keep its Minutes in quiet- 
ness ; if they had entered into such an obligation as that, 
whether by" oath or by promise, then there would have been 
an element to be condemned. There would, then, have been 
such a secret organization as the Covenanter church should 
deal with, and as I hope to God all the reformed churches, 
and all the evangelical churches, will yet unite with her in 
breaking the power of such organizations. 

Has there been any proof brought forward to show that 
we were under any obligation to conceal and to never reveal 
what transpired in that Meeting'? Well, the very fact that 
when asked by Presbytery to come forward and" make full 
and frank statements that we felt at perfect liberty to come 
forward and tell them all they know to-day of what took 
place at that Meeting, is evidence that we were not bound to 
secrecy. And if at that time, before all this trouble had been 
stirred up in the church, before brethren began to look upon 
us with suspicion, and to hold us at arms* length; if at that 
time Presbytery had asked us to state who was there we 
might have told the names of every one that was there. I 
can say to-day before God that I am at liberty this minute to 
tell every one who was there in person or by representation 
at that Meeting ; l ean say that brother H. H. Temple is at 
perfect liberty to-day to publish to the world the Minutes of 
that Meeting as they are written in his diary. And neither 
he nor I would be guilty of a breach offaith to a brother in 
so doing. We are not under any pledge, nor are we under 
any promise, that we will never reveal the proceedings of 
that Meeting. 

You ask, then, why do we not come forward and put the 
Minutes of that Meeting on this table? You ask me why we 
do not give the name of every one who attended that Meet- 
ing. Ah. Brethren, why was it that Douglass, hanging sus- 
pended from the precipice, held secret, if you wish to call it 
so, the name of his beloved pastor, from Cromwell and his 
men? Why was it that the Covenanters of Scotland refused 
to state their secret place of meeting, where they would 
gather to worship God and hold communion with the Saviour 
they loved? Why did they feel under restraint not to reveal 
these things? Was it because they were secret organizations? 
Was it because they had entered into a solemn covenant with 
each other to repress facts? !N~o, but it was because they loved 
their brothers ; it was because they felt they were cruelly 
wronged and persecuted, and they did not desire to reflect 
upon those, who were innocent of any crime, the same in- 
justice and suffering to which they had been subjected. And 
that is the onlv reason to-dav whv mv mouth is sealed: and 



316 



STENOGRAPHIC REPORT. 



my mouth would be sealed even under more trying circum- 
stances than these. 

l et me know that this Court is not determined to pursue 
and crush out, and to seek to sully the character of the men 
whom I love, and for whom x would lay down my life, and I 
would be very willing now, without consulting them, to tell 
you every one that was there. But until I have some assur- 
ance that their safety is guaranteed, I will be silent; not be- 
cause I am bound to it, but because I owe it to myself as a 
man. 

I take uj) the second fact that was brought before this Court 
to prove that there was au organization formed. Was there 
an organization formed at the East End Meeting? Well, the 
defendants bring forward certain evidence that there was. 
There is, first, a report in a paper and another one in the libel 
formed to prove that there was an organization. They refer- 
red to an interview that was related in the Commercial Gazette 
on August 22nd, in which Dr. McClurkin is reported as hav- 
ing said, "We organized this society" for such and such 
reasons. Now I ask you to consider certain facts. This inter- 
view took place on the 22nd day of August. Ten days before 
that the Elders' Convention had been held. The charge was 
there made of an organization. The papers were full of 
reports of this organization having been formed and so on. 
This reporter comes to Dr. McClurkin and asks him in regard 
to certain things. Dr. McClurkin and he had a conversation. 
An organization was never mentioned either by Dr. McClur- 
kin or by the reporter; but the thought of an organization 
was in the mind of that man. He wrote nothing there. He 
went to his home and wrote up this report of the interview 
with Dr. McClurkin. 

T have in my possession a letter from Dr. McClurkin and as 
it is only a few lines, I wish to read it as rebuttal evidence to 
show how much proof there is that there was an organi- 
zation. And I presume, to most of the members of this Court 
at least, the word of Dr. McClurkin will be acceptable. 

"Allegheny, June 5th, 1891. 

"The language of the interview of August 22nd in regard to 
organizing a society I never used. Neither did 1 by the use 
of any other language say or imply that an organization had 
been effected. 

(Signed) J. k. m'clurkin." 

I shall not say anything further in rebuttal of this news- 
paper item. I feel that so far as it has had any weight with 
any member of this Court, that statement, over the signature 
of Dr. McClurkin, will be sufficient to brush it forever to one 
side. 

Now the next evidence on which they base an organization 
is the statement of the East End Platform, which is as fol- 
lows : "We, the undersigned, agree together in the mainte- 



MONDAY, JUNE 8. 



317 



nance of the following principles." It is asked, does not that 
imply an organization? The first item of the basis submitted 
to us by the Judiciary Committee, was: "We disavow the 
East End Platform as a bond of union within the Reformed 
Presbyterian church. " Does that imply an organization? 
These brothers before this Synod say, that when they were 
in that Judiciary Committee, the thought of an organization 
was not in their minds at all. u We disavow the East End 
Meeting as a bond "of union." But let us take that expression 
4 'We agree together." Remember that we are all bound to- 
gether in covenant vows. Remember that we are all members 
of the household of faith and in one communion. Remember 
that the principles, as set forth in that Platform, were the 
honest convictions of men in regard to the right interpreta- 
tion of the Testimony, to which they were bound by ordina- 
tion vows. And then what becomes of the expression 14 We 
agree to maintain." We simply renewed our obligation to 
each other to stand true to our ordination vows and maintain 
the truth to which we felt we were bound by the Testimony 
of our own church. So much for that evidence of an organi- 
zation. I now come to the third evidence, that Rev. H. W. 
Temple admitted that there was an organization. This is 
true. 

(At this point a motion was made that the rules be sus- 
pended and the Court take a recess until half past 1 o'clock, 
which was agreed to.) 

AFTERNOON SESSION. 

The MODERATOR: We will now resume the hearing of 
the appeals which were before us at the time of adjournment. 
Mr. E. M. Milligan has the floor. 

Rev. E. M. MI L LEG AX : This morning before adjourn- 
ment I was taking up the different facts which Presbytery 
stated were before them at the time of their meeting, and 
which justified their course of procedure against us, and you 
will remember I had specified these facts : 1. The Meeting at 
East End. 2. The secret Meeting. 3. The organization. 4. 
The formulating of the Platform. 5. Circulating that Plat- 
form. I had said, that the fact of the Meeting, the formulat- 
ing of the Platform, and adhering to those principles, were 
the facts, that were really before Presbytery; and I was 
proceeding, to show, that these other facts, on which they 
have based so much of their argument, and which are really 
vital to their side of the case, were not before them at the 
time of the meeting of Presbytery; and that even at this late 
day after six months have passed by, in which they had every 
opportunity to collect the facts, there is no evidence to 
justifiy these statements, that a secret organization was formed 
with a design, to destroy the church, or to justifiy the thought 
of such facts. ... - 



318 



STENOGRAPHIC REPORT. 



And I dwell more particularly on this matter (this must be 
my apology for the length of time I have taken) because the 
very a;ist of the whole question lies right here. If there was 
a secret organization designed to destroy the Covenanter 
church then I would not be here pleading my case against the 
Pittsburgh Presbytery. Then Pittsburg Presbytery would 
not only have been justified but compelled to take the steps 
she has taken, 

J have already shown you how much ground there is to 
suppose that there was a secret society; and I was speaking 
on the matter of an organization at the time of adjourment. 
I had referred to the fact that this belief was rested first on a 
newspaper report. I brought you a letter from the person 
with whom that interview was said to be held denying that 
he ever used the word "organization". 

Dr. MCALLISTER: May I ask you to read that letter 
again? 

Eev. E. M. MILLIGAN : I would do so with pleasure but I 
left it at home. I left at home the part of my manuscript 
that I had done with and I have not the letter with me. 

Dr. GEORGE : You can produce it? 

Rev. E. M. MILLIGAN : Yes, sir, lean produce it and will. 
The substance of that letter signed by Dr. J. K. McClurkin 
was to the effect that he had never used any language or made 
any suggestion that would lead to the supposition that there 
had been or was an organization formed at the East End 
Meeting. That was the substance of that letter. 

The next point that was brought forward was the matter of 
the heading of our Platform. "We the undersigned agree 
together to maintain these principles." I had shown you 
exactly what we. understood by that; and that this was 
nothing more than that men who believed that voting on 
amendements was right or men who believed that voting on 
amendements was wrong, here agree together to maintain 
their honest convictions without necessitating an organization 
for that purpose. 

And when I closed I was at this point: The admission on 
the part of Rev. H. W. Temple that there was an organi- 
zation. Now this is in the nature of evidence; and in regard to 
this statement, in order that it may be fairly presented to the 
minds of all, bear with me while I state the circumstances of 
that admission. After the trouble had proceeded to that 
point where it was necessary for us to meet the Judicial 
Committee, we assembled there at the call of the chairman 
and heard read to us the basis on which they proposed to 
settle this trouble. 

The first two points had been talked over and were satis- 
factory to your appellants. But on the third point I and 
others had taken exception and had asked exactly what was 
meant by our giving a promise that we would not propagate 



MONDAY, JUNE 8. 



our opinions. When this point was just about settled, Brother 
Temple, who was sitting next to me, touched my arm and 
said, "We cannot accept that basis." I asked him why? He 
said, "There is an organization." Well, I was very much 
surprised at tLat, for it was the first intimation I had of any 
organization of any kind having been formed, and I at once 
replied to him, "Yon are mistaken about that; we didn't 
organize at East End." He said, "There is an organization.' r 
You will remember that that basis, as written, was, "We 
repudiate the basis of organization formed at East End," or 
words to that effect. When Mr. Temple said this, I reached 
over to one of my brothers, who was sitting near me, and I 
asked him if he understood that an organization had been 
formed at the East End; the reply was, "No " I said to 
him, "Brother Temple says there was an organization formed 
there." He said, "Well, I did not so understand it." I then 
turned back to Mr. Temple, and I said that there was no 
organization. He said, "Well, I so understood, and have 
written it in the minutes." "In order to relieve my mind, I 
believe I will speak to Dr. McAllister on the subject, and ask 
him, if I could honestly accept that basis with my belief, that 
there was an organization." I said, "All right, suit yourself 
on the matter; but", I said, "So far as I am concerned, I 
could honestly accept that basis, for I know of no organiza- 
tion, and I have nothing now but your belief for the fact of an 
organization." 

Mr. Temple then asked Dr. McAllister, if he would be kind 
enough to step outside, as he would like to see him privately 
for a few moments. What took place there, the Moderator 
has already informed you. Mr. Temple told him, that we 
had formed an organization, and asked him if he could 
accept that basis with that fact in view. The Moderator told 
him, as Mr. Temple said, pretty much what the Moderator 
has told us here, that if there was an organization formed, it 
was a great mistake, and that he ought to get right out of 
such a thing, and if he would agree to disavow the organiza- 
tion formed at the East End, that was all that was necessary. 

He came back, and gave this opinion of the Moderator, 
That satisfied him on the matter of accepting that basis. 
The others were alreadj^ satisfied, for so far as I am aware r 
not one of the others had the slightest thought that an or- 
ganization ha-d been formed there. 

When we came to Presbytery, and these resolutions were 
produced, then the matter came out, that were explanations 
in connection with it; because, as we understand those reso- 
lutions, I confess, we were very much like the Moderator said 
he was, — startled. We were startled, when we heard those 
resolutions introduced by a member of the Committee, who 
we had understood had heartily approved the basis of agree- 
ment; and when, as we understood (and as the gentleman 



320 



STENOGRAPHIC REPORT. 



says he believes we were sincere in our convictions), the 
matter was settled in the Judicial Commission, and we 
thought we had received the right hand of fellowship. We 
were startled at this breach of faith, as we considered it. 

We then held to the view, that there were understandings 
and explanations made, when w& accepted that basis. And at 
this point I would like Dr. J. W. Sproull, as part of my 
speech in rebuttal, to state, whether I did not make objection 
to that third item, as to not propagating nry opinion; and if 
he did not, make to me the statement, that I have asserted 
in this Court, that a committee had already been appointed, 
of which Dr. Willson was the chairman, to prepare a chapter 
to be added to our testimon3 r , defining the orderly way of 
propagating opinions, and that we were to hold our opinion 
in reserve, until the orderly way was determined. 

Dr. J. W. SPEOULL : Yes, that is correct. 

Rev. E. M. MILLIGAN: Now that was the only point in 
that entire basis, that I took any exception to. Here were 
truths that I believed in. However mistaken I may have been 
in my opinion, I was sincere in the conviction that this was 
the truth of God's word. And I would not even for the sake 
of escaping the trial and the suffering I have endured for the 
last six months, bind myself not to open my mouth on what I 
believe to be the truth of God's Word. But with this under- 
standing in that Committee, that our opinions were not to be 
propagated in any disorderly way, I was very glad to accept 
that basis, and settle the trouble. 

When this Committee came in and introduced the resolu- 
tions, and when I heard the report of the Committee, it 
seemed. to give Presbytery the idea, that we had engaged not 
to propagate our opinions; that we had given them up and 
burried them forever, true or untrue ; that we had pledged 
ourselves that we would forever be silent on what we believed 
to be the truth of God's Word. There was the reason that I 
arose in the Court at that time, and withdrew my acceptance 
from the third item of that basis. I would not stand by that 
item with the Court having that understanding of it. If they 
would simply put in the words, "We agree not to propagate 
our opinions in any disorderly manner," that would have 
suited me. I would wait until this Synod in its wisdom had 
defined what was the orderly manner, and neither by voice 
nor pen would I have anything to disturb the peace of the 
church or to act in a disorderly manner. 

Now this statement of Mr. Temple's came out at this meet- 
ing. There was a suspicion then, an organization had been 
formed; one of its members, its secretary, had stated that an 
organization had been formed. Well, there was talk among 
the different ones, and inquiry made, "Did you understand 
there was an organization?" "Did you?" "Did you?" And 
from ail hands came the reply, "No, we did not understand 



MONDAY, JUNE 8. 



321 



there was an organization."" That was not the understanding 
of one of us at all. But here was Mr. Temple with the under- 
standing that it was. and in his letter in which he reviewed 
the pastoral letter, (and 1 wish I had that here, because he 
states it very plainly), he says that is was simply his impres- 
sion, it was his opinion, and the rest were not agreed with 
him in that opinion. 

We now pass on to the time when Rev. J. E. "J. Milligan 
came to be tried*, and this will bring up the fourth point that 
they have to show the fact of the organization. They were 
trying to make Rev. J. R. J. Milligan accept, not the basis 
that he had accepted in the Judicial Committee, and the basis 
to which he still adheres, but they were trying to have him 
accept the only basis as it has been said that Presbytery pre- 
pared: and in this basis it was stated. "That we hereby 
acknowledge (or we hereby declare) our withdrawal from the 
organization formed at East End. and express our sorrow 
for it."" 

I submit. Brethren, how could any honest man who never 
believed he was in an organization, who never dreamed that 
an organization had been formed, accept a basis in which he 
declares his withdrawal from an organization that never 
existed, and express his sorrow for being identified with 
something that had no existence, except in the opinion of one 
member who was there? How could he accept of that basis? 
Well, there was talk in Presbytery back and forth. I was 
suspended at that time, and had no right to the floor, no right 
to speak, but with the pleasure of the Moderator 1 gained the 
floor, and said that I thought I could make an explanation in 
this connection that would dismiss the misunderstanding that 
seemed to gather around this matter. 

In the meantime Rev. J. R. J. Milligan had said that he had 
in his hand or in his possession, an affidavit from Rev. J. F. 
Carson to the effect that an organization never had been 
effected at East End. Now, here were contradictory state- 
ments, and one of the defendants say-, there is a falsehood 
somewhere, and then he referred to my explanation. I rose 
to explain what appeared to be a contradiction, and I told 
them substantially what I told you. that there was a difference 
of opinion existing among some of the brethren that were at 
that East End Meeting: that Mr. Temple did believe that an 
organization had been formed, and had as an honest man. a 
man of veracity, stated what was his belief: but that he was 
the only one so far as I knew that had thought an organiza- 
tion had been effected. But. however, I was not disposed to 
dispute the point, because it had been incorporated in the 
minutes that an organization was formed. 

Dr. GEORGE : Is the brother proposing to give the words 
he gave us at that Meeting. 



322 



STEKOGKAPHIC KEFOKT. 



Rev. E. M. MILLIGAN : As nearly as I can remember 
them. 

Dr. GEORGE : I just merely wish to know whether you are 
repeating your statements. 

Rev. E. M. MILLIGAN : One member of the Court said, 
"^ovv that is candid.'* The Moderator at once arose, and 
asked me if it was in the preamble to the minutes or if it was 
in the body 'of the minutes. I think the Moderator will re- 
member asking- me that question. My reply was. T do not 
know, for I have not seen the minutes.'* That was the state- 
ment that I made to the Court at that time. 

Dr. MCALLISTER : I would like. Mr. Moderator, that a 
very exact remembrance of this be kept before the Court : I 
want the Court to remember exactly what has now been 
stated. 

Rev. E. M. MILLIGAN : I will repeat it so as to impress it 
on the minds of the Court; that at this Meeting, when these 
contradictory statements were being made. I arose, and asked 
the privilege of making a statement with the view of clearing 
up the apparent misunderstanding that existed: and at that 
time I stated the fact that there was a difference of opinion 
existing among the members; in Mr. Temple's judgment an 
organization had been formed, but so far as I knew he was 
the only one who had attended that Meeting who thought 
that an organization had be&n effected ; and that the rest of 
us were of a contrary opinion. One of the members of the 
Court said that that was a candid statement. The Moderator 
asked me if the fact of an organization being formed was in 
the preamble of the minutes or in the body of the minutes, 
and I told him I did not know. I could not answer that ques- 
tion as I had not seen the minutes. Now I desire the facts in 
regard to this falsehood that exists between us 

Dr. MCALLISTER : Give us the complete statement as you 
made it before in regard to what you said further. 

Rev. E. M. MILLIGAN : Suggest it and 1 will repeat it. 

Dr. MCALLISTER : The statement you made in reference 
to the minutes. — did you say you had not seen them? 

Rev. E. M. MILLIGAN : I repeated that statement that I 
said. I did not know, that T had not seen the minutes. I re- 
peated that statement, or at least I meant to, and thought I 
had. Now then this misunderstanding, this falsehood that is 
between us is simply because honest and truthful men have 
stated their honest and truthful convictions. If there was an 
organization formed at the East End Meeting, Mr. Temple is 
the only one who knew anything about it. There, then, are 
all the facts on which this matter of an organization rests. 
And in opposition to the opinion of Mr. Temple, and in oppo- 
sition to the statement which he has incorporated in the 
minutes, that a permanent organization was formed at East 
End. in has been stated in this Court that the affidavit of one 



MONDAY. JUNK 8. 



3'i3 



honored member of this Court has been produced to the 
effect that he never knew of an organisation having been 
effected. There were also the statements, ar d there could 
also be the affidavits of other members of this Court, and of 
every man who had anything to do with that Meeting, that so 
far as they knew there was no organization effected. At the 
various meetings of the Pittsburg Presbytery the fact has been 
iterated an reiterated, over and v over again, and Mr. Temple 
made some statements, that while he had that opinion, others 
did not agree with him. And we have stated, that while he 
had that opinion we did not agree with him in regard to that 
matter of an organization. Now, there are all the points of 
the secrecy and the organization before you, with all the facts 
pro and con. As to the matter of purpose, they tell you that 
the purpose was to destroy the church; that the purpose of 
that Meeting was to lead the church into defection. 

Dr. MCALLISTER : Mr. Moderator, let us avoid any com- 
plication. It is stated expressly, that they were not 
charged with the purpose of destroying the church; it is 
stated expressly that they were charged with the purpose of 
holding a meeting and issuing a platform ; but it has never 
been charged, that the purpose or intention was to destroy the 
church. 

Kev. E. M. M1LLIGAN: One of the memorials before 
Pittsburgh Presbytery read as follows. 

Dr. McALLISTEK : This is a prosecution on a libel. 

Kev. E. M. MILLIGAN : I am aware of that, and the mem- 
orials that were before Pittsburgh Presbytery were brought 
before this Court, to show what facts were here on which 
Presbytery had acted. 

The MODERATOR : The speakers, however, representing 
the Presbytery, did not make as one of their points, that the 
purpose of the East End Meeting was to destroy the church. 

Dr. MCALLISTER : I simply bring that out to avoid any 
unnecessary argument. If he sees fit, let him go ahead with it. 

Rev. E. M. MILLIGAN : I will pass it and simply take the 
other fact that the Presbytery had to deal with, that the 
church was divided. Whatever might have been our inten- 
tion, the church was divided. What are the facts in regard to 
this condition in the church? When the Presbytery met, wai 
the church divided? When the Presbytery met, were the 
schemes if the church imperiled? When Presbytery met, 
was there one of the congregations under the charge of these 
young men in a disturbed condition? Well, I could answer 
for Parnassus congregation, and each one of the other breth- 
ren can answer for his own congregation. There was no 
trouble in Parnassus, not the slightest; Parnassus congrega- 
tion would have contributed more than three times the money 
it has to schemes of the church, if there had been nothing but 
that Ea£t End Meeting, notwithstanding the trouble and mis- 



324 



STENOGRAPHIC REPORT. 



representation that had been made of our position and of our 
action. 

Just let us look for a moment at an illustration, which one 
of the speakers brought forward. The East End Meeting, he 
said, was intended. The formulating of that Platform was 
intended. But whether the destruction of the church was 
intended, the fact was. that the church was divided: and 
hence he claimed that we were responsible for that divided 
state of the church. Xow, I maintain that the fact of an East 
End Meeting being held, the fact of an East End Platform 
being formulated, depends altogether of the use that was 
made of that Meeting, or the use that was made of that Plat- 
form, as to whether we were responsible for the result. I buy 
a gun. That is a fact. I might load that gun with heavy 
shot. That would be a fact. "And I may stand that gun in a 
corner of room. That would be a fact. If some one comes 
alono- and discharges that gun. am I responsible for the re- 
sults? 

I admit the East End Meeting was a fact, and I admit, that 
the formulation of the Platform was a fact: but so far as 
any use we made of it is concerned, it was simply to correct 
misrepresentations. But did anybody else make another use 
of it? All you have to do. is to read the memorials. All you 
have to do. is to read the statements that were made through 
the church magazines, and then you will find out who fired 
the gun, that has disturbed the church. And I maintain, that, 
is was not the men that were at the East End Meeting. I 
maintain that unless they can show that it was our act "that 
has brought the church into this condition, we are not respons- 
ible, even though the fact of holding the East End Meeting 
and the fact of formulating its Platform, were both intended. 

There are a great many things that I purpose to pass over, 
in order not to occupy too much of your time. It has been 
stated, that our opinions are antagonistic to. and destructive 
of the fundamental principles of our church. I am not going 
to argue that question. 1 am not going here to attempt to 
defend my opinions, because both of these defendants have 
already stated a plain truth, which I think is in the mind of 
every member of this Court, that with my private opinions 
you have nothing to do. If the defendants cam show that we 
were using our opinions in a disorderly manner, that we were 
enforcing" our opinions from the Platform, or through the 
press, and thus dividing the church, then that will be a point 
to be considered. But'the mere fact, that some of the opin- 
ions which we have placed in the East End Platform are 
contrary to the position of the church, and destructive to her 
fundamental principle, as a church among the branches of the 
church of Christ, has nothing to do with deciding whether or 
not we are guilty of the heinous sin and scandal of following 
a divisive course. If we can show on the one hand, that these 



MONDAY, JUNE 8. 



325 



are honest opinions, and that they were simply put forward 
in order to correct misrepresentation, — if others have taken 
those opinions to destroy and rend the church, I am not re- 
sponsible for that. 

I shall, therefore, pass over the statements that are made in 
regard to those principles in the Platform, but at another 
time, and under other circumstances. I hold myself ready to 
give a reason for the faith that is in me, and to defend the 
principles that I believe are true, or to acknowledge my error 
provided they are shown to be contrary to the Word of God, 
and to the standards of the Reformed Presbyterian church, to 
which I am bound. 

There was one statement I made here in regard to the fact, 
that there was nothing before the Court from any of the con- 
gregations of the suspended ministers to give them any reas- 
ons to proceed against us. This matter was brought up, and 
the fact, that the name of one of the elders of my congrega- 
tion was signed to that call was brought forward, and one 
member of Pittsburgh Presbytery stated, that he had a letter 
in his posession. authorizing him to sign the name of one of 
my elders to that call. 

If the Court requires it. I am prepared Avith witnesses; I 
am prepared with those who are in good and regular standing 
in the church, to prove that this same party told me that he 
was not in sympathy with that Meeting, that he felt that it 
was a mistake, and that although he attended the Meeting he 
only stayed while it was organized, and then went away. And 
therefore the fact, that this elder has a letter in which he 
authorizes his name to be signed to this call, does not affect 
my case at all. It simply places two elders against each 
other, and I would prefer to pass that whole matter by as a 
misunderstanding, rather than call on that elder to produce 
his letter here, and then to call the witnesses to prove that the 
other said what he said. 

Dr. GEORGE : I think it is due to Mr. Dodds for me to say 
that he spoke to me before leaving, and said that he thought 
he was mistaken as to the purpose for which that letter was 
written to him, or at least it was written perhaps with infer- 
ence to signing the call, but not received when the call had 
been sent away. However he said he had the letter with 
reference to the subject. I want to correct that, because Mr. 
Doclds himself stated it was with reference to putting the 
name on the call. 

Rev. E. M. M1LL1GAN : The name was not there? 

Dr. GEORGE : I could not say about that. 

Rev. E. M. MILLIG AN : I am not certain either. When I 
returned from the east I know that Mr. Copeland said to me, 
"You will see that none of your elders were on that call." I 
have never seen the call myself, and I simply had that state- 
ment, and I believed that there was a mistake between these 



326 



STENOGRAPHIC REPORT. 



brethren. I do not wish to call in question the veracity of 
the elder of my congregation, much less do I wish to reflect 
upon the veracity of elder John A. Dodds. I believe that in 
some way there has been a misunderstanding, and hence I 
would rather not call forward the witnesses to substantiate 
the statement I have made as to what Mr. Copeland told me. 

And I think, at this same point it is due to Rev. John F. 
Crozier to say that the same thing is true with regard to Mr. 
Crozier and Mr. Copeland. Mr. Copeland stated his iuipfes- 
sion, and Mr. Crozier says he never used the word "commis- 
sion,' ' that he never named "commission. 1 " 

Rev. J. F. CROZIER : I said that I never made the state- 
ment that you declared from that platform I did make to Mr. 
Copeland; I did not say that I did not use the word "com- 
mission.'" 

Rev. E. M. MILLIGAN : In regard to this Committee? 

Rev. J. F. CROZIER: No, sir; I do not know whether I 
used that word or not; I say I did not make the statement 
that it was a commission positively to Mr. Copeland. I do not 
know what I may have said to him. We talked for fifteen 
minutes. 

Rev. E. M. MILLIGAN": I am simply stating that what- 
ever Rev. Crozier said to Mr. Copeland, whether he used the 
name "commission'- or ••committee, '* he left the impression 
upon Mr. Copeland that it was a commission. He may not 
have intended to do so. And here again it was a misunder- 
standing. And, Brethren, I maintain that this simply shows 
how easy it is to misunderstand another person. And there- 
fore we are not justified in trying to show, because of a mis- 
understanding, that ministers of the Gospel, that elders in the 
church of Christ, are guilty of stating falsehoods because 
they may disagree in regard to certain matters. So I dismiss 
that matter, and unless this Court demands it, I will say 
nothing more in regard to it; but I simply assert that I have 
witnesses to prove my statement. 

It was stated here that the young men attempted to blacken 
the character and name of the elder- who signed the call for 
the Elders' Convention. I appeal to any member of this 
Court, if they heard anything said against the elders who 
signed that call? If any man who stood here before you 
pleading his case said one word against any elder who 
signed that call, I did not. And I heartily endorse every 
word that was said in defence of the elders, and of the honor 
of the elders who have stood loyally by the church, and with- 
out whom the church would not have carried forward her 
work so successfully as she has done to-day. 

But what was the statement made? Why it was in regard 
to the person who wrote the call for the Elders* Convention; 
that was all. It was simply the person who put in that call 
those statements that are absolutely opposed to the truth. 



MONDAY, JUNE 8. 



327 



It was with reference to the call that the language was em- 
ployed. 

I maintain that when you place the two documents side by 
side — the East End Platform, with its plain statement, that 
its design is to correct misrepresentation, and the call for the 
Elders' Convention, with its statement that we organized "to 
lead the church to disregard her solemn Covenant, and to 
forsake her sworn allegiance to Christ, her King, as is openly 
declared in their published Platform" — I maintain that any 
man. who would write such a statement as that, has an utter 
disregard of truth, or else is a man who writes a great deal 
without heeding his words, without thinking of what he is 
writing. 

Now it was against the person who wrote that call and who 
stated such facts in the call without any evidence; it was 
against such a one, and such a one only, that we have said 
one word in this connection. I pass on to the point that we 
have made, that we believed that there was something of a 
conspiracy to trap us. or some motive— we did not assign a 
motive — although if this were a criminal court we might pro- 
ceed to assign several motives, but we did not do that. We 
simply had evidence, or reason, to believe that there was a 
wheel within a wheel, and that as a result of this work rather 
than anything we had done, the Court was carried along and 
forced to take the steps that it did. 

In regard, then, to this matter of the Commission I wish to 
say a few words. And I will say here that, if these brethren 
had been willing to. admit that they had misunderstood us; 
if they had not been so anxious to prove falsehood and to 
prove crimes upon us. — I would have been willing to accept 
in all sincerity the explanations they made regarding this 
commission-committee business: but when they are sus- 
picious of us. it looks as if we had reason to be a little sus- 
picious of them. 

Now let me show you the facts— the facts, understand — on 
which we justified the suspicion that the Minutes of Pitts- 
burgh Presbytery had been tampered with. The first fact 
was that the Committe on Discipline in the first place report- 
ed and recommended that a commission be appointed. The 
second fact on which we justify it is the statement that the 
Minutes record that the Presbytery by motion changed this 
commission to a committee. There is no such motion on the 
Min. tes of Pittsburgh Presbytery. No such motion as that 
is to be found on the Minutes of Pittsburgh Presb.vtery. signi- 
fying this change. 

Dr. GEORGE: To avoid getting too far into this. I want 
to ask if it was not read here in the Minutes that "the report 
wag amended and adopted." 

Rev. E. M. MULLIGAN : Yes, sir: that is a fact. 

Dr. GEORGE : Does not that cover this? 



328 



STENOGRAPHIC REPORT. 



Rev. E. M. MILLIGAN: No. sir. Because there was a 
sixth item in the report of the Committee on Discipline 
which was stricken out. and the simple fact that the report 
was amended, might apply to that sixth item, and not at all 
touch the question of whether there was a change from a 
commission to a committee. I am stating this now not to 
fasten any suspicion upon you. understand me. but I am 
showing you the facts that were before us to justify that, sus- 
picion. 

Dr. GEORGE : Mr. Moderator. 1 have gone over this 
ground once. I do not wish to be put on my trial here again 
with regard to this Minute. If there is a suspicion awakened 
in the mind of the Court on that subject, lam perfectly will- 
ing to have it reviewed, and to review it again ; but I give 
notice that I do not consider it. after what has occurred in 
this Court, the proper thing that a line of evidence of that 
kind should be submitted, and compel me to go over the 
ground once more. If the brother feels he is under the neces- 
sity of doing it, I am certainly willing to do it. 

Rev. J. S. T. MILLIGAjST : The matter is a matter of fact 
that is necessary to be discussed. While a fact, it is intimated 
that the young men do not propose to urge it as a matter of 
tampering, or anything of that sort, but they wish to justify 
themselves in regard to the suspicion that they admit they do 
entertain, and I think have a right to present the fact. 

Dr. GEORGE : I simply say again, it is a question of per- 
sonal privilege. If this Court is willing to put me on trial 
again, and listen to the evidence pro and con. of course I am 
willing, alter what has occurred, that you shall hear it all. 

Rev. J. S. T. MILLIGAN : Brother George has a right to 
repby to it. 

The MODERATOR : The speaker, of course, has a perfect 
right to give the reasons for the suspicions that were in their 
minds. The question that Dr. George raises, however, is 
simply that after having gone over the matter and presented 
the evidence, showing just the real state of the case, it is not 
a thing he desires to go over once more. 

Rev. E. M. MILLIGAN : I do not think that Dr. George 
need to go over this again. I do not charge it upon him. I 
do not say now that it is even a suspicion in my mind. I am 
simply showing the facts on which our suspicion was based. 
• Dr. GEORGE : Mr. Moderator, if my brother thinks it im- 
portant to his case, I raise no obstacle in his way. I simply 
am willing that he shall state the facts if he thinks it best. 

A MEMBER: Was not that charge withdrawn by Mr. 
Reed? 

The MODERATOR: Mr. Reed withdrew his suspicion. 

Rev. E. M. MILLIGAiSf: I am perfectly willing to pass this 
matter by, although without calling up the facts that were 
before us. that justified this suspicion. I will make the point. 



MONDAY. JUKE 8. 



329 



and the only point I intended to make, by calling them up. 
which was this: That there were presented to us facts.' well 
substantiated, that gave us far greater reason to believe that 
the Minutes of Pittsburgh Presbytery were tampered with 
than any evidence that was ever before Pittsburgh Presbytery 
to justify their suspicion that we had followed a divisive 
course, or that we were guilty of a heinous and scandalous 
sin. 

Dr. GEORGE-. Did you sav you are in possession of facte? 
Rev, E. M. MILLIGAX : Yes. sir. 
Dr. GEOEGE : Let us have the facts. 

Rev. E. M. M1LLIGAX: They are not facts that will prove 
that you tampered with the Minutes 

Dr. GEORGE : That would justify a suspicion on me. and 
would not prove it? 

Rev. E. M. MILLIGAX : Yes, sir. 

Dr. GEORGE: I want to say that there is no fact that 
would justify a suspicion on my character that will not prove 
it; and the fact that justifies a suspicion that I tampered with 
the Minutes of Pittsburgh Presbytery, must be a fact that is in 
the nature of proof. 

Rev. E. M. MILLIG AX : I say facts that are of the nature 
of proof. 

Dr. GEORGE: Submit them. 

Rev. E. M. MILLIGAX : The first fact that was before our 
mind that justified that suspicion was, that a commission was 
recommended by the Committee on Discipline. 2. The sec- 
ond fact was. that the Minutes of Pittsburgh Presbytery do 
not record a motion to change the commission to a commit- 
tee, although that change might have been made, and I do 
not deny that it was made: if so. it was in the simple state- 
ment that the report of that Committee was amended and 
adopted. 3. The third fact was. that many of the members 
of the Court were ignorant of any change having been made, 
even though it was done by Presbytery. The minister who 
was chairman of the Judicial Committee was ignorant of it 
until he went to that meeting, and he even constituted the 
body as a commission, and other members of Pittsburgh 
Presbytery and ottnr men and women who attended that 
meeting as witnesses, were of the opinion and firm conviction 
that it was a commission, and they knew of no change hav- 
ing been made. 4. The fourth fact that would point to and 
justify a suspicion was. that the original report of the Com- 
mittee on Discipline never went into the hands of ihe clerk. 
It has been stated that it was offered to him. Very well. I 
do not deny that. But we do not know this fact: we did not 
know even that the report was offered to him until we heard 
it the latter part of last week stated on this floor. Hence the 
fact was there, that that original report had never gone into 
the hands of the elerk. .">. The fifth thing was the' fact that 



330 



STENOGRAPHIC REPORT. 



this word '-mittee'' after *Com. v was written in lead pencil, 
suggesting to our minds the thought at least that when it was 
determined to make this a committee rather than a commis- 
sion, in order to make everything harmonious, ^mittee 1 ' had 
been written on the record." 6. The sixth thing was, that, so 
far as we understood, the power of a commission was retained 
by that court. As we understood it, that court was empow- 
ered to settle the difficulty, to settle the whole trouble, to 
prepare a basis of settlement; or, in case they could not agree 
with the young men, to formulate libels, and cite witnesses, 
and call us to trial. Now these were the facts that were before 
our minds. The explanation of Rev. Dr. George in regard 
to many of these facts was not before our minds. We never 
heard of one of these explanations until we heard them stated 
by himself on the floor of this Court. 

Brethren, I submit to you that these facts, without any ex- 
planation from any one, did justif^y a suspicion that some one 
was tampering with those Minutes, that some one was deter- 
mined to carry out a plan which we believed had begun to 
show itself when we were trapped into making statements of 
our connection with the East End Meeting, and our helping 
to formulate its Platform. 

Rev. J. GALBREATH : Is it proper for Mr. Milligan to be 
permitted to continue in this line, after it has been so often 
stated that Presbytery designed a committee and not a com- 
mission? 

Rev. E. M. MILLIGAN: Mr. Moderator. I stated to this 
Court that I did not reiterate the statements with any design 
to incriminate Dr. George; that I did not repeat them with 
any design to intimate that the suspicion still lingered in my 
mind. That was not my intention. I was simply reiterating 
this to show how the facts that were in our minds previous to 
the time, when we heard Dr. George's explanation, justified 
the suspicion that was there. 

Dr. GEORGE : Let me ask : Were these suspicions in the 
mind of all of you that Mr. Reed brought out? 

Rev. E. M. MILLIGAN: I only answer for myself: they 
were in my mind. 

Dr. GEORGPC: And Mr. Reed spoke for the rest of you, or 
represented the others of you in making those charges? 

Rev. E. M. MILLIGAN : I will state this: that I did not 
know what Mr. Reed was going to say ; Mr. Reed did not 
know what I was going to say. We have not been consulting 
with each other in the matter, nor conferring, in regard to 
any statements that he would make. If Mr. Reed had not 
made the statement I should have done so. 

Dr. GEORGE : Mr. Moderator, [ desire to ask Mr. Milligan 
whether the general understanding was that the statements 
should be made by some one? 

Rev. E. M. MLLLIGAN : I would answer. Mr. Moderator, 



MONDAY. JUNE 3 



331 



That I have already stared that there was no general under- 
standing existing among the young men. 

Key. J. R. J. MILLIGAX : I want to say, as one of them, 
that, so far as this is concerned. I did not know one single 
point that any of the others had. Nobody is authorized 
here to make a single statement lor me. 

Dr. GEORGE : I wish to ask one other question. 

Rev. J. S. T. MILLIGAX: I do not think you ought to ask 
for the privilege of asking him to commit the others in regard 
to an agreement as to their prosecution of this matter. 

The MODERATOR : He wishes to know wether the speaker 
doe^ represent the other-. 

Dr. GEORGE : I understood him to so commit them to it. 

Rev. J. S. T. MILLIGAX : They are pretty talented young 
men: but recollect, we have got the ablest men in the church 
on the other side. I hope they will give them a fair chance. 

Dr. GEORGE : It is not a matter of whether a man is able 
or otherwise: when he is being tried as I am. he has got some 
privileges on this floor. 

Rev.Lj. S. T. MILLIGAX: I think that is entirely with- 
drawn, so far as Brother George's motive is concerned ; it i- 
only with reference to things that were on their mind. They 
want to justify themselves in regard to the suspicion that they 
had under these circumstances. 

Dr. GEORGE: They will have to submit a good deal 
stronger evidence than they have vet. 

Rev. J. R. J. MILLIGAX : I understood the other day that 
after Mr. George and Mr. Heed had made their statements. 
Mr. George made a statement which. I think. I will correct: 
that he understood, or gave me to understand that he thought. 
Mr. Reed was speaking for all of us. I want to clear myself 
from that, and that is the reason I rise on this occasion; I do 
not want it to get into the mind of Mr. George, or into the 
mind of thi> Court, that there is any conspiracy here at all. 
Xow. I think. I have the right to make that statement. 

Rev. W. L. C. SAMSON: I rise to a question of privilege. 
I notice that Mi*. George said. Mr. Reed spoke for all of us. 
I want to say for the benerit of the Court, that I never heard 
of that idea until I heard it advanced by Mr. Reed. I did not 
know there were such suspicious things in the Minute- until 
I heard them advanced by Mr. Reed. 

I >r. GEORGE : On the floor of the Court? 

Rev. W. L. V. SAMSON : On the floor of the Court. 

Rev. J. C. SMITH: Then it ought to be understood that 
the brother should not have -aid "We" when he spoke of 
these thino-s: he should have -aid "I." 

Rev. E. M. MILLIGAX: I have stated to this Court, that 
we are. each one. here representing ourselves; that we. each 
one. have our own speeches to make, and that no one repre- 
sents another. If 1 say ••We." 1 simply do it in a parliamen- 



332 



STENOGRAPHIC REPORT. 



tary style, instead of using the personal pronoun •'I.'" In 
regard to these matters that I have referred to, I have stated, 
and I will state again, that we didn't have the explanations 
which Dr. George brought to this Court. 

Dr. GEORGE: You mean "We" or '"I?" 

Rev. E. M. MILLIGAN : I. I did not have the explanation 
before me that Dr. George submitted to this Court. I had 
simply these facts before my mind, without any explanation 
at all. and with these facts before me. while it did not fasten 
guilt upon any one, it did lead me to the suspicion that some 
one, whether it was one or more, was back of apian, and back 
of a scheme, who did not hesitate to change the Minutes, if 
necessary, in order to carry out that plan. 

I now pass on to a poiut made by the first speaker as to the 
matter of breach of faith. It was stated that there was a 
breach of faith on the part of the young men, and this state- 
ment was made as an offset or in connection with our charge 
that there was a breach of faith on the part of a certain mem- 
ber of that Committee. He tried to show that the breach of 
faith was first made by the young men. In regard to that he 
called attention to three things. 

The first was that there had been an agreement in that Ju- 
dicial Committee not to say anything in regard to what trans- 
pired there. Let me correct the statement in part at least. 
We were sitting in that committee-room over in the Central 
Allegheny church, and while our conversation was being- 
carried on, a number of the representatives of the press gath- 
ered around the church door. Some of them came in and 
knocked on the door. When we went out they desired some 
information for the papers. This fact was reported in the 
room After we had reached what we believed to be a full 
settlement of the trouble, one of the young men suggested 
that we say nothing about it for the papers; that already the 
papers had done too much talking in regard to this matter; 
that already too much reproach had been heaped upon the 
church, and he suggested that we make no statement what- 
ever to the newspaper representatives until it should come up 
in Presbj^tery. ISTow, that was the agreement we entered 
into: that was our understanding of that agreement. We 
never understood that we were pledging ourselves not to say 
that this trouble was settled. Why, when I went back to 
Parnassus, several members of my congregation met me and 
were there with their right hands extended to rejoice with me 
that the trouble was settled. One of my elders was a. member 
of that Committee, and had returned to Parnassus before I 
did. and had informed them that the trouble was settled. 
When we went out of that committee- room, here were half a 
dozen at least, of the members of the rjress, surrounding us 
and asking what had been done, if we had any statements to 
make, if we would give them anything to write up. Xot one 



MONDAY, JUNE S. 



333 



word did they get from any of us. We told these men that 
we had no statements to make, that the Commission were in- 
side, and for them to wait and see that Commission, and they 
would make any statements to them that they liked. And al- 
though these reporters, anxious to get some idea of news for 
their papers, quizzed us and plead with us, and asked, is this 
one here and is that one there "(for they didn't know us as 
well then as they do to-day), asking our names and trying to 
find out, if they could not secure some information from some 
of us ; there was not one of these young men that opened 
his mouth to one o these reporters. We made absolutely no 
statement whatever. We kept faith with that Committee in 
that matter. The next day I was just as much surprised as 
members of that Committee, when I saw in the paper in big 
head lines "Victory for the Liberals. " But we had just as 
good grounds to suspect that some of the members of that 
Committee had given this information to the newspapers, as 
they had to suspect that we had given it. We had never 
opened our mouths on the subject. Kemember they cannot 
truthfully, and they said they did not, bring any proof to this 
Court, that we did break faith in that matter of giving out 
the result of that meeting to the newspaper. It is merely 
suspicion. It is merely the fact that there was an item in a 
paper. One newspaper-man, I remember very well, said, 
"Well, you do not look very sorry; you do not look very 
sorry."* Perhaps we didn't look very sorry. We did not feel 
very sorry. On the other hand we were rejoiced to think 
that all this dark cloud, that w T as settling over us, had passed 
away, and we were rejoicing when we left that Committee. 
And this young man, for the simple reason that we did not 
look very sorry, inferred that we had gained a victory, and 
he so wrote it up in the paper, but without any authority 
from us, and without one word from any one of these young 
men who had left this Committee. Here again part of their 
proof that we broke faith with them, rests on unsubstantiated 
newspaper reports. It is like all the other evidence that they 
have brought, of a damaging character against us; simply 
newspaper items that have no verification back of them at all. 

The second thing was that we had misrepresented what 
actually occured in that Committee. Not only had we broken 
faith, by giving it out in the papers, but we also broke faith 
by stating falsehoods in regard to what transpired. Well, I 
submit, Brethren, if not one of us opened our mouths on the 
subject, and if the newspaper stated falsehoods, we are not 
responsible for them. Whatever that newspaper reporter 
wrote up, he wrote it purely and simply on his own account, 
and not from anything we stated to him. Consequently we 
are not) resposible for that. 

The third thing that was brought before you, was an edi- 
torial on the cover of our Banner. I think it would be perti- 



334 



STENOGRAPHIC REPORT. 



rient to ask right here, how in the world this could be brought 
forward as evidence to justifiy the introducing of the resolu- 
tions in Presbytery? According to the statement of the 
brother, the Banner was not received in Pittsburgh until 
November 7th. His resolutions were introduced November 
4th. Now then supposing there had been a breach of faith so 
far as that article in the Banner is concerned, it did not jus- 
tify the breach of faith, because he knew nothing of it, until 
three days after he had introduced his resolutions. But in re- 
gard to this, how are we going to account for it? Simply in 
this way : On my way from meeting that Committee I walked 
over to Pittsburgh, and I had some'busiress to attend to. My 
father was anxious and worried through all these months, and 
he wanted to know as soon as possible what was done. I took 
a postal card and wrote him according to appointment. -We 
have met with the Committee, and this trouble has all been 
settled, and the right hand of fellowship has been extended t3 
us." I sent that on a postal card to my father, and the next 
da}* my father received from some one. not from me. (and he 
does not know who sent him the paper), a Commercial Gazette 
Avith head lines in it. -Victory tor the Liberals."* Now he 
had my postal card that the trouble was settled, and that we 
had received the right hand of fellowship from this Commit- 
tee, that thej' had said to us that we were misunderstood : and 
he had this paper before him. -Victory for the Liberals."' and 
setting forth certain facts. With that evidence before him. 
he wrote the article hastily for the paper that was going to 
press, because the Banner was already in press and just about 
to be published, and he could only get it on the cover. With- 
out a great many facts before him. he wrote that article and 
put it in the Banner. 

I maintain, with these facts before this Court, it proves that 
the young men did not break faith with that Committee in any 
particular. No, not in one particular did we break faith with 
them. When I went to Parnassus on the next Sabbath, when 
I spoke to my people I simply told them, that the trouble had 
been settled : that I was very glad of it. and the matter dis- 
missed with that. I never referred in public to what the 
settlement was further than that a settlement had been made. 
Whatever responsibility my father may have for writing that 
article, for misrepresenting the facts, it is for you to say. So 
much for the breach of faith on the part of the young men. 

Then he tells us in justification of his having introduced 
that resolution not only that we young men had "broken faith 
with them in this particular, but also because these articles 
that had been written in the papers had aroused opposition in 
the church, and that there were some who were feeling that 
the case of Presbytery had been given away: and, con- 
sequently, he introduced these resolutions in order that our 
agreement might go through. If that was the reason, I think 



MOKDA\ . J I Is E 8. 



335 



that when he met us in Presbytery on that day. he might at 
that time at least have come to us: he might at that time 
have ;isked us. if we had anything to do with that newspaper 
report: or he might have told us the state of feeling in the 
church, and in the Presbytery, awakened by this article, and 
that these resolutions were going to be introduced for this 
reason. If he had done that!Tit might have put the thing in a 
better light before the young men. but he did not. Not a 
word was said to us, ana we came to that meeting of Presby- 
tery, amazed in the first place, that the meeting should be 
called at all: and then, almost the first thing we heard, was 
this member of the Committee getting the floor and stating, that 
not as a member of the Committee, "but as a member of the 
Court, he had some resolutions to be introduced, to be con- 
sidered in connection with this basis of settlement. 

My Brethren, we were startled. It simply made me feel, so 
far as I was concerned at least, that there was bad faith, and 
that there were those who were determined to prevent anything 
like a peaceful settlement, and to not end their work until 
they had driven us from the church of our birth, and the 
church in which we were carrying forward our work. 

It has been said, that he hada right to introduce these 
resolutions before rather than after the report had been acted 
upon. But I beg to differ from such an opinion as that. If 
the Committee had come there and presented their basis of 
settlement, and had stood by it and had spoken for it. and had 
sought to put it through Presbytery, used their influence, 
used the power of their eloquence to put that settlement 
through Presbytery, and Presbytery had rejected it, and then 
Dr. George had gotten up. and introduced his resolutions, in 
order to still carry the settlement through Presbytery, there 
could no bad faith have been charged upon him or any one 
else. But the very fact, that before Presbytery had a chance 
to say whether that settlement was satisfactory or not. before 
there had been one word spoken pro or con here came in 
these re-solutions denouncing the East End Meeting, denounc- 
ing our principles as an onslaught on the church, but intimat- 
ing that since we had agreed to not propagate our opinions all 
further proceedings be stopped. 

I submit, it puts a false construction on what we had done, 
and it made us feel at least that these resolutions would con- 
tinue the misrepresentations that were already rife throughout 
the church ; and we felt we could not afford to allow our char- 
acters to be thus trifled with, and maintain an ignominious 
silence. We would not do that, and hence we spoke in de- 
fence of our characters. 

Xow. again the assertion was made, that we did withdraw 
our assent from that basis of settlement. Again. I assert that 
I never withdrew my assent from anything but the third item. 
— the matter of the agreement not to propagate our opinions. 



336 



STENOGRAPHIC REPORT. 



And I have already placed before this Court my reasons for 
withdrawing my consent from that. And the fact that we 
young men before the trial began, brought forward a basis of 
settlement, the first two points of whicn were substantially 
the same as the basis submitted by the Judicial Committee; 
and the first two points would have been identically the same, 
if we had had before us the basis offered to us by the Judicial 
Committee, but we didn't have it, and we wrote that basis as 
we could recollect it. as we had it in our minds, and tried to 
conform it as closely to what the Cominitte had offered us as 
possible. Dr. George says he cannot see any difference, and 
he cannot see why we changed a few words. It is simply be- 
cause we did not remember exactly what those two items 
were. But then the change was made in the third item, and 
there we simply introduced the additional words, *-Inany dis- 
orderly manner." That was our understanding of the basis 
which he had accepted in the Judicial Committee. That was 
the understanding upon which we were willing to stand, that 
we would hold our opinions in reserve, until Synod should 
define the "orderly manner. And in the meantime, and at 
no time, would we propagate them in any disorderly manner. 
Now, Presbytery comes, and they say that they did not reject 
our basis. No; they respectfully received it, and amended 
and amended it, until it was their basis word for word, with 
something additional in regard to withdrawing from the or- 
ganization formed in the East End. and expressing our genu- 
ine sorrow for it. 

Brethren, we did assert, and we are willing to assert again, 
and we asserted during our trial several times, that so far as 
that East End Meeting is indirectly to blame for any trouble 
or any misunderstanding, or any dishonor that has been 
heaped upon the church of Christ, we are sorry for it ; we 
regret it. That statement was made at our trial. But the 
fact that they wanted us to admit in the trial, was that we 
were sorry for having attended the East End Meeting, as if 
that was a crime. That we were sorry for having belonged to 
an organization, when we never belonged to an organization, 
and when I never gave my consent to any organization ; and I 
cannot, as an honest man, say that I am sorry for that for 
which I am not sorry. But I do regret most sincerely so far 
as the East End Meeting is concerned, or so far as the East 
End Platform has been indirectly connected with or the occa- 
sion of any misunderstanding or trouble in the church. 

When Presbytery offered us this revised basis of theirs, 
what were the objections? One of the members of the Court, 
and the one who was the leading prosecutor at our trial arose 
and said, "Mr. Moderator, in offering them this basis they 
must accept it without explanation; their answer must be 
"yes" or "no." Yes or no was the alternative, and we said, 
"no." And, I submit, there is not a member of this Court 



MONDAY. JUNE 8. 



337 



under the same circumstances that would not have said pre- 
cisely the same tiling. We were not allowed to ask a question 
in regard to it. We were not permitted to make an explana- 
tion. There was that basis agreeing not to propagate our 
opinions, and we were not even allowed to ask if it was in an 
orderly or disorderly way. It was simply. - We agree not to 
propagate our opinions." "Yes or no.'* -Xo" "every time 
with me. 

But now as to the statement that was made here that cer- 
tificates of standing would have been given us to another de- 
nomination. Whatthe first speaker said in regard to us having 
proposed such a thing on the floor of Presbytery is true. He 
did that. But what the speaker said, that it met with very 
little opposition. I think is rather questionable. When that 
resolution was introduced it called forth the hotest kind of 
debate on the floor of Presbytery. Members of Presbytery 
debated that question as to the propriety of it : members of 
Presbytery all over the house in different directions arose and 
said they did not think that was the proper thing to do. One 
man who had prosecuted us said that if he was in the place of 
the young men he would rather be tried than at this stage of 
the proceedings accept a letter of standing to another denomi- 
nation. 

It was because ef this debate and wrangling that was going 
on as to whether Presbytery should or should not offer to us 
these letters of standing that I arose and said, ••Mr. Moder- 
ator. I may able to save some valuable time to this Court by 
stating, that so far as I am concerned, while I would be very 
much pleased to see this motion pass in order to see what kind 
of a letter of standing the Presbytery would give us to preach 
to other Christians, when she would not permit us to preach 
in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ to members of the 
Reformed Presbyterian church; while I would like to see that 
letter given to us, yet I for one would not accept it." I said 
that as we had come to this point I would stand my trial, and 
that I would demand either to be proved guilty of heinous sin 
and scandal or else that all suspicion should be removed from 
my character. At that point the party who introduced the 
resolution withdrew it, and the debate ceased. But I am 
doubtful whether that offer would have gone through Pres- 
bytery, even if I had not declared positively on the floor that I 
would not accept of a letter to another church under the cir- 
cumstances. 

One of the speakers referred to the fact that I had excepted 
from my complaint of injustice and wrong certain ones of 
Pittsburgh Presbytery. In regard to that I believed the ma- 
jority of Pittsburgh Presbytery, and do believe the majority 
of Pittsburgh Presbytery, to have been sincere in every thing 
they did. I said then, and I am willing to repeat again, that 
I did not feel in any sense that a majority of the members of 



338 



STENOGRAPHIC REPORT. 



Pittsburgh Presbytery were actuated by any feeling of malice 
or by any desire to do me an injustice, but thatthey were 
acting honestly, and that when they voted to suspend me they 
did it in the fear of God, and believing they were doing God 
service. 'I referred especially to Dr. J. W. SproulL and the 
speaker called attention to the fact that he was on the Com- 
mittee on Discipline, that he was chairman of the Committee 
to settle this trouble, and that he also voted to sustain the 
libel against us. Now I would like to ask Dr. J. W. Sproull 
to make any statement that he likes in regard to what was said 
or done at that time. 

Eev. J. W. SPEOULL : I believe I will avail myself of the 
opportunity, for brother P. J. George spoke to me on the very 
same question; and may be for aught I know (for I have no 
knowledge of what the speaker's motive is) for the very 
same reason. 1 had not intended to say anything about this, 
but this opportunity being afforded. I will do so. My brother 
asked me if I understood his allusion as to in any sense reflect 
upon me. Some members of Synod had rather understood it 
was such; and some members have spoken to me in the same 
light; of course. I said. I did not so understand it. I would 
not for one moment imagine my brother would be guilt}' of an 
act of that kind. His idea was to show that 1. who was en- 
deavoring to act fairly, had agreed with other members of the 
Committee and the members of Presbvterv. in what was done. 

Dr. P. J. GEOPGE : And also, that the Presbytery had put 
you forward as prominent in the case. 

Dr. SPEOULL : I state correctly what you intended? 

Dr. GEOEGE: Yes. only I also" brought to view that you 
were put forward by the Presbytery itself as a leader in the 
case. 

Dr. SPEOULL: You brought it forward for that purpose 
only ? 

Dr. GEOEGE : Yes, that is correct. 

Dr. SPEOULL: That is correct. Now as reference has 
been made to me, you will excuse me if I go a little out of the 
way. It gives me the opportunity of making an explanation. 
A number of the members of Presbytery and friends have 
spoken to me about it. It is no secret that the family to 
which 1 belong, and the family to which my brother belongs, 
have never been on as cordial terms, as many other brothers. 
And I have no doubt when this case came before Presbytery 
when he heard my name mentioned, he wondered whether I 
would keep quiet, or whether I would avail myself of the 
opportunity to redress real or imaginary grievances. When 
he saw I did not keep quiet and did not avail myself of the 
opportunity, but tried to act fairly, although acting in a way 
he disapproved of, yet he felt it right, and fair, and a matter 
of kindness, to show that he appreciated my efforts in en- 
deavoring to act fairly, even though he condemned me as he 



MONI»AY. JL'NE 8. 



339 



did, with the other members of the Committee or Commission 
in what they did. And I will saj< here now that I looked 
upon, in the very same light, the kind reference of Brother 
George in the beginning- of his address. The kind reference 
made by the different persons who were tried at the close of 
the Meeting of Presbytery towards the members of Presbytery 
who had been their prosecutors was appreciated. And I will 
say to the brother — for I have never spoken to him as to 
whether I appreciate it or not — that as such an act, under the 
circumstances, I appreciate it. 

Rev. E. M. MILLIGAN: When I made that reference to 
Brother Sproull, I was complimenting his heart, not his judg- 
ment. I did take exception to his judgment. I felt that he 
had erred ; but what Dr. Sproull brought out illustrates what 
I intended by that. His course right straight through con- 
vinced me that he was acting conscientiously, that his heart 
was right even though he differed from me in this matter; 
and I believed when he voted to suspend us he did it from 
sincere motives and from sincere convictions. But the reason 
that I especially referred to him was this : Because in the re- 
solutions which I have already referred to in my opening- 
address, and at eveiy step of the proceedings, Dr. Sproull was 
trying to settle this trouble. There was one instance of it in 
which he wanted the whole matter brought up to Synod. 
Then I remember that when these resolutions were intro- 
duced, and their flame had started up again, that Dr. Sproull 
was on the floor stating that these young men misunderstood 
those resolutions, and that that was the cause of the trouble. 
And I remember later again, that Dr. Sproull was the man 
who when our congregations came in with petitions that we 
be permitted to preach until Synod, on the floor offered a re- 
solution, and it was seconded by Dr. H. H. George, that in 
answer to those petitions these young men be sent back to their 
congregations to preach to them until Synod. And I remem- 
ber also that when Presbytery proposed the resolutions that 
these young men who had observed the sentence of the Court 
— if they could say that they had observed the sentence of 
the Court — should be sent back to their congregations after a 
month or so of suspension — I remember that I was the only 
one who could say and did say candidly to the Court that I 
had never opened my mouth anywhere except to pray at the' 
bedside of the dying. Was the motion to allow me to go back 
and preach to my congregation offered? Dr. George was the 
one that offered the motion. But he sat down until Dr. Sproull 
said to him, -'E. M. Milligon has observed the sentence, and 
you will have to make that motion in regard to him." Dr. 
George said, "Yes, that is so;" and he comes up and offers 
the resolution; but not until Dr. Sproull had said to him that 
I observed the sentence. Now, I do not say this in order to 
charge anything upon Dr. George in this matter. But, breth- 



340 



STENOGRAPHIC REPORT. 



ren, we were in the heat of conflict. Remember that I had 
been suspended from the privileges of the church of Christ for 
six months. And when I saw these things they looked sus- 
picious. Whether Dr. George meant anything or not, it 
looked to me wonderfully like he did. Dr. Sproull was the 
man who at that time suggested to him that in justice this 
should be offered to me, and then when it was offered 

Rev. D. S. FARIS: I do not see any use in these men 
taking this oportunity to touch one another up. We want to 
go by this discussion of personal matter. I feel tired out with 
this sort of stuff. 

Rev. E. M. MILLIGAN: I am tired too, brother, and so I 
will pass that. In regard to the second speaker, although I 
have something like fifteen or possibly twenty pages of notes 
I will pass over the most of them ; and I will be excused if I 
look hastily at notes in order to select here and there a few 
things that I feel I must reply to. There is one fact that I 
won't stop to argue, but simply want to cali the attention of 
this Court to it. The speaker referring to the libel under the 
point, 4i Is the complaint against Pittsburgh Presbytery of in- 
justice and wrong proved," takes up the libel and argues that 
the admissibility of that libel is right, because the character 
of the accuser was above suspicion. And who was the accuser? 
The Presbytery itself, he tells you. But then further on when 
he comes to argue the case of an appeal he takes the position, 
that Presbytery is not a party. Presbytery the accuser, and 
Presbytery not a party ! 

Now, I deny that Presbytery was the accuser ; and I think 
there has been loose thinking here. Presbytery was the Court 
and the accuser should be the records of Presbytery. The 
records of Presbytery do declare that we made statements thus 
and so. There was the accuser, and not Presbytery. So that 
he is right when he says that Presbytery was not a party to 
this case, but he is wrong when he says that Presbytery was 
the accuser. The libel therefore was not admissible, because 
the accuser, the records of Presbytery were not there, and there 
were no witnesses. 

There is a matter that he referred to in regard to the relev- 
ancy of the libel, and either I and a good many others mis- 
understood the speaker during the trials at Pittsburgh Pres- 
bytery, or else we have greatly misunderstood him in his 
address to this Court. In regard to the relevancy of the mat- 
ter, in the first trial when the statement was before the Court 
as to the libels being relevant, I rose and argued against the 
relevancy of the libel. The Moderator at that time explained 
to me, that the relevancy of the libel depended on the charge. 
He asked me if devisive courses were not relevant to censure. I 
admitted that divisive courses were relevant to censure if 
proven. But my idea was, that the counts 'in the libel must 



MONDAY, JUKE S. 



341 



establish the charge of divisive courses : and unless they did 
the libel was not relevant. 

For instance a man might be charged with the crime of 
murder, and it is stated that he was seen walking, chasing a 
chicken over a ten acre lot with a knife in his hand. This i& 
the fact to establish the crime of murder. I would maintain 
that that libel was not relevant, although the man was charged 
with murder. 

And so I maintain that when the charge in that libel was 
following a divisive course, and the only count in the libel to 
sustain that was. attending a meeting in the East End and 
formulating a platform of principles. "that these do not con- 
stitute the crime of following a divisive course, and therefore 
the libel was not relevant." But when the Moderator ex- 
plained to me that relevancy referred to the fact of divisive 
courses being censurable, then I sat clown. If that was the 
relevancy I did not so understand it : but I submitted to the 
Moderator's decision at that time. 

However, note in the next trial one of those who was placed 
at the bar of justice was not so easily to be satisfied. The 
same question was brought up in regard to the relevancy of 
that libel, and the Moderator again gave his decision that the 
relevancy was established because "it asserted the crime of 
divisive courses. At that point the speaker asked him to be 
kind enough to have his decision recorded, but this was de- 
clined. He said that he had given no decision in the case; 
that he simply read from the Book, that if the charges be 
censurable, the relevancy is established and the charge was 
following a divisive course. It was from that the appeal 
was taken, and he complained, with all those who joined with 
him. 

But when he comes before this Court he says, we could not 
argue on the relevancy of the libel because it was against the 
principles of the church. Xow. I maintain, that is "an entire 
shift of base: it is an entirely different statement from what 
was made at our trial. But what was the grounds of it? We 
could have discussed the relevancy of that libel, and we could 
discuss the relevancy here to-day. without once touching the 
matter of the principles of the church, and without arguing 
against a single principle of the Testimony, or of the Bible. 
The question to decide the relevancy would have been this. 
••Would the fact of the Meeting at the East End. would the 
formulating of a platform of principles, some of which were 
contrary to the principles of the church: would the fact of 
having circulated that Platform, and having made an ac- 
knowledgment of it in the Court, constitute the crime of fol- 
lowing a divisive course?" We could have argued along that 
line without once either attacking or defending the principles 
of the church, or the principles of our Platform. But no. we 
were denied any right at all to argue on the relevancy of that 



342 



STENOGRAPHIC REPORT. 



libel. The question was simply determined that it was rele- 
vant, because following a divisive course was a censurable 
crime. 

Again, the speaker referred to the fact that the Minutes 
were correct so far as he knew, excepting in the one instance 
that he referred to. Now. I have already called attention to 
the fact that on two several occasions in the Pittsburgh Pres- 
bytery I arose and desired to have that Minute corrected 
which stated that I had withdrawn my assent from the basis 
of the Judicial Committee, and it was even put to a vote of 
the Court, whether the Minutes, as they were, should con- 
tinue, or whether the change should be made, and it was 
voted down. When I explained exactly what I had said and 
what I desired done on the floor of Pittsburgh Presbytery, 
and asked them respectfully to allow the Miuutes 10 be 
changed so that I might be truthfully represented before the 
church, the Moderator denied the request, and it was put to a 
vote, and the Court sustained the Moderator, and the Minutes 
of the Pittsburgh Presbytery stand to the effect that I with- 
drew my assent frcm the basis; and I have never been able to 
have that change made, although twice I have sought it. 

There is another point, which I wish to touch upon before 
leaving this matter, and that is in regard to our complaint 
that our case was prejudged: that members of the Court de- 
clared that we were guilty, and declared their readiness to 
suspend us. before they had heard the case. I submit, that 
this is cause of complaint. The fact that members of the 
Court did assert on the floor of the Court openly, before our 
trial, that they were ready then to suspend us. — and the fact 
that some who had attended the Elders' Convention had de- 
clared there that 4 our heads ought to be chopped off" — 
proved that they prejudged our case, and came to that trial 
with the determination to sustain any charge against us along 
the line of this libel. 

Xow. while there was an excuse offered for these persons, 
the case was introduced of two members of the Court who it 
was said had voted substantially on their own case because 
they were identified with that Meeting, and that this was a 
case not only of prejudgment, but it was an outrageous case 
on the part of the men, who were guilty of the same crime in 
voting to acquit us. Although oue~of the individuals referred 
to, has been too modest to make a statement himself, yet I 
am ready to say that while the East End Platform was form- 
ulated by a committee, and uuanimously agreed upon by a 
committee, and while it was unanimously adopted by every 
one who attended that East End Meeting. Mr. A. McClurkin 
never had anything to do with the East End Platform, or 
with its formulation. But the other speaker, who did admit 
on the floor of Presbytery his attendance at the East End 
Meeting, and who did admit that he had a hand in formula- 



MONDAY, JUNE 8. 



343 



ting the East End Platform, i maintain, was a perfectly com- 
petent person to vote on that case. Is it possible that there 
is not a distinction to be drawn between one whose mind is 
made up because of the facts, and a person whose mind is 
made up on suspicion and hearsay testimony? A person who 
was at the East End Meeting, a person who knew all the facts 
in the case, had the very best opportunity to know just exactl)'' 
what was done, and how much guilt there was in it. was a 
very competent person to state whether or not that libel was 
just, that charged us with the crime of following a divisive 
course. 

If a member of this Court knew anything in regard to that 
East End Meeting, or Platform, our own Book of Discipline 
says that he should not allow that knowledge to influence his 
decision, but he should go before the Court as a witness and 
tell what he knew. How did that incapacitate him from vot- 
ing on the case? Suppose this member should state', as he did 
state before the Court, all that was to be known. He had 
been a witness. He had certified to the Court that he was 
there, and that he helped to formulate that Platform, and 
that he adhered to its principles. Now, is nor, he a competent 
witness to sit in the Court and vote on that case'? I maintain, 
that is an entirely different thing from a man who knows 
nothing except from hearsay, except from slanderous state- 
ments that are flying around through the press and maga- 
zines, and who, before he knows anything of the facts in the 
case, comes with his mind made up to vote one way or the 
other. The cases are not parallel at all. While in the one 
case we are right in appealing from prejudgment because of 
those who were ready to suspend us before they heard our 
case, in the other case the men were perfectly justifiable in 
voting "Not to sustain.*' and "Not guilty/" 

There is one thing, however, that I must speak of in this 
connection. The speaker takes occasion while justifying the 
conduct of certain individual members of Pittsburgh Presby- 
tery during the course of our trials to contrast what he calls 
the sorrow and tears that were manifest in Presbytery, with 
the levity that was manifested on the part of the young men; 
and he refers to the fact that while the sad proceedings were 
being carried forward, two honored members of a sister de- 
nomination, who were at that time in our own denomination, 
were sitting there, joining with us in this kind of levity. My 
dear Brethren, I deny that in toto. In the first place I am 
perfectly free to say that during that entire trial from begin- 
ning to end Dr. McClurkin was not near us. Dr. McClurkin 
occupied a place in the rear of the church, and only once was 
he seen up in front and that was when A. W. McClurkin had 
declined the authority of the Pittsburgh Presbytery. At that 
time he came up and consulted with him just for a moment, 
on what I do not know, and immediately retired. With that 



344 



STENOGRAPHIC REPORT. 



single exception that man who has been assailed openly on 
the floor of this Court, and upon whom reflections have been 
cast of a nature which I feel are unjustifiable, was never near 
us during any part of the proceedings. 

But in regard to levity on the part of the young men I deny 
that also. There was no unseemly conduct: there was no 
levity. It was referred to. that there was a kindly spirit, and 
I maintain, that during all the trials in Pittsburgh Presbytery 
there was a kindly spirit manifested. I maintain that with 
few exceptions the young men. who were there on trial, said 
nothing in an angry spirit ; and though they may have said 
some things in the heat of the moment that were better not 
said, yet from the beginning to the end of that trial there was 
no anger and no malice exhibited on the part of these young 
men. They did sit there quietly: there may have been re- 
marks passed back and forth between themselves that may 
have caused a smile ; but not the nature of levity that is refer- 
red to or that th<- speaker desires this Court to understand 
there was. There was no frivolity. I maintain that it was a 
great deal better, and I am a great deal better satisfied that 
the speaker can say this, than that he should come here and 
say that, with anger, and wi h malice and bitterness, we had 
passed through that trial. If our pleasantness be an offence, 
then we were offensive. 

Xow it was stated that the condition of certain congrega- 
tions referred to by this speaker, proved that we had followed 
divisive courses. I am only going to touch this point in this 
way : Remember that these congregations were not divided 
until after Presbytery got through with its work. Bear that 
in mind. Consequently what may have happened afterwards 
did not justify their course at the time. I admit to-day that 
our congregations are sadly divided and, I fear, some of them 
ruined ; but nevertheless, our congregations were not divided 
at the time that Presbytery proceeded with its trial and pro- 
ceeded to our suspension. The division in the congregations 
came, after many signers had come up to Pittsburgh Presby- 
tery, pleading with them to allow us to preach to them until 
the meeting of Synod. Presbytery denied their petitions. 
And then certain ones in the congregation would justify 
Presbytery, and certain ones would condemn Presbytery, and 
thus strife was engendered in the congregations. Not from 
any divisive course that we had followed, not from any opin- 
ions that we had expressed, not from the East End Meeting 
that was held; but the divisive opinion arose as to whether 
Presbytery was justified in the course which she had carried 
on. And it is that question to-day that is agitating and dis- 
turbing the peace and welfare of the congregations of your 
appellants. 

There was a irreat deal said in regard to what our opinions 
are. and what our position is. that at another time I will be 



MONDAY. JUNE S. 



345 



perfectly satisfied to reply to and state frankly what my opin- 
ion is. and what my position is. I do not consider that it has 
been fairly placed before this Court, and I feel that we have 
been misrepresented In the statements that have been made, 
and at a proper time I will be perfectly willing to defend my 
position and my opinion. However. I pass it with this simple 
remark : That, although a great deal has been said in regard 
to the character of our opinions, and so on. just bear in mind 
that the same speakers have told you. that with a man's opin- 
ions they have nothing to do : with our opinions tUey have 
nothing to do. So it is not a question before this Court 
to-day. whether my opinion is right or wrong, or whether 
my opinion conflicts with the standards of the church or not. 

But if they have shown you that I used this opinion in such 
a way as to divide the church, if i have acted disorderly with 
my opinion, that will bear on the question. But do not allow 
your minds to be prejudiced on the matter of whether my 
opinion is right or wrong. Take their statement for it that 
that has nothing to do with the case, that they had nothing- 
to do with that, and that you. dear Fathers and Brethren, at 
this time have nothing to do with the question of whether my 
opinion is right or wrong. 

There was a statement made, that if our convictions have 
changed in regard to the church, it was our duty to withdraw 
from the church: that we. as honest men. if our oonvictions 
had changed, ought to withdraw from the church. This 
statement ha- not only been made on the floor of this Synod, 
but has also been circulated through the church magazines. 
I have just a simple word to say in regard to that. We must 
distinguish between a divine institution and a voluntary as- 
sociation. In any voluntary association you may make any 
terms and condition- that you like the conditions of member- 
ship. For instance, somewhere I saw the case mentioned of 
a democratic club being formed. The person joining in that 
club must profess democratic principles. Suppose he after- 
wards changes his mind and turns over to be a republican or 
prohibitionist; what is his duty in such a case as that? His 
duty is to withdraw from the democratic club. There is no 
question about that. That is a human organization, and the 
men who organized it. organized it on certain principles, and 
anybody who disagrees with the principles of that voluntary- 
association, has a right to get out of it. But there is a vast 
difference between that and a divine institution. T am in the 
church of Christ by birth. I am in the church of Christ on 
condition of my relation to Jesus Christ, the Head of it. If I 
am a member I am a branch of that vine and I have a rightto 
be in the church of Jesus Christ: and the mere fact thatlmay 
differ in opinion from an opinion that the majority may have, 
doe* not in the least deprive me of my ri^ht* and privilege* 
in the church of Christ. 



346 



STENOGRAPHIC REPORT. 



That whole argument rests on the right and justice of sec- 
tarianism. If sectarianism be right, if sectarianism be a 
Scriptural duty, then such a line of argument would be per- 
fectly logical/and would be pertinent to the question. But I 
think that there are not many members of this Court who 
will argue in favor of sectarianism, or that will justify it in 
any case whatever. To do so would be to go back on the Tes- 
timony, and on the Covenant, which declares that the church 
is one, and ougbt to be one; and hence these sects and deno- 
minations, these branches into which the church of Christ is 
divided, have no justifiable existence, being all contrary to 
the Word of God. I maintain, that there is nothing in God's 
Word that will justify the head from refusing to recognize 
the feet, refusing to co=operate with the hands, or dispensing 
even with the uncomely parts of the body. 

Hence this claim that we ought to withdraw from the 
church, if we do not agree with all her opinions, is wrong. 
The church is my home; the church is. my birth-right: I am 
there because I have accepted Jesus Christ as my Saviour, 
and because he has formed in me a hope of glory, and be- 
cause by being faithful I give my life to his service. That is 
my right in the church of Christ, and my right does not de- 
pend "on whether I agree with a minority or with a majority 
in an opinion that may be expressed. 

I will take up just one more point and then I have done, 
and that is in regard to our appeal from the decision of the 
Court, finding us guilty, and the illustration which I nsed to 
show that our appeal should have stayed the proceedings at 
that point. It has been asserted that my illustration is an ex- 
position of unsound thinking; and a specimen of sound, 
broad, philosophic thinking has been presented to this Court. 
But I ask you to look at that illustration again, and as you 
have it before your minds, I will use precisely the same illus- 
tration. A. man is tried for mi rder. He is found guilty, and 
he appeals to a higher court. I maintain that at "that point 
the sentence is suspended ; that that court has no right to 
read to that man the death sentence, and proceed to carry it 
out to vindicate the law. The sentence is suspended until the 
higher court decides upon the case. 

The Doctor takes up this illustration to show you the un- 
soundness of it. He illustrates it in this way : He says that a 
parallel would be this : That this murderer, having appealed 
from this decision of the lower court rinding him guilty, ac- 
cording to the idea of the young men. should be let go in 
order to carry out his murderous work. Now, where is the 
unsound thinking? Simpty that the Doctor does not draw a 
line of distinction between the execution of the sentence and 
the taking of the necessar}' precautions to secure that man 
against doing any harm. The execution of the sentence is 
one thing: the taking of the necessary precautions to see that 



MONDAY, JUNE 8. 



U7 



that man does not continue to cany on bloodshed and murder 
until the higher court has passed upon his case, is a very nec- 
essary thing. I now maintain, that was the case before Pitts- 
burgh Presbytery; we had appealed from their conviction 
finding us guilty. The sentence was "-Suspension. " Our 
appeal should have stayed the infliction of the penalty. But 
would Pittsburgh Presbytery be powerless? Ah, no! It would 
have been perfectly pioper for Pittsburgh Presbytery at that 
point to have taken a pledge of us that in view of the fact that 
Pittsburgh Presbytery had thought our opinions wrong, had 
thought our opinions hurtful and destructive to the church, 
that we would not preach our opinions; that we would not 
send out opinions through the church either in her maga- 
zines, or circulate them through the country by the use of the 
papers or secular press, or preach them from her pulpits. 
That would have been pertinent, and that would have been 
Presbytery's right. That is, she could have done that con- 
sistently with her right. But I maintain, if the sentence had 
been tar and feathers, if the sentence had been the rack, if the 
sentence had been the stake— the same thing would ha ve been 
done, that is, the execution would have been stayed by our 
appeal, or else according to the proceeding taken by the de- 
fendants, the sentence must have been carried out and hence 
our lives even would have answered at the bar of Pittsburgh 
Presbyteiy before this higher court could pass upon the case. 
I maintain, that the appeal of the murderer from the decision 
of the lower court finding him guilty, stays the sentence. 
They only take necessary precautions to see that he carries 
his case forward, and that he is prevented from doing harm. 
If it is a mere civil suit, let him give bail; but in a case of 
such serious character as murder and these high crimes they 
simply keep him confined until the higher court has passed 
on his case. 

So I maintain that that illustration holds, and that Pitts- 
burgh Presbytery transgressed its authority when in the face 
of our appeal they proceeded to the execution of the sentence. 

Dr. B. B. GANNON: We have now heard arguments on 
both sides. When the young men presented their case, the 
brethren answered it. When they speak now they ought to 
be held simply to what the representatives of the Presbytery 
brought out. and not be allowed to go over the whole ground 
again; and so when Presbytery comes to give their rejoin- 
ders, they must confine themselves to what i* said in answer 
to what thev said before, without going over the whole case. 

The MODERATOR : That is certainly the rule, but it 
seems, however, when you attempt to call any one to order, 
they are within the rule. 

Mr. RIT.EY: The point I want to raise has been partly 
raised by Mr. Cannon, that is, I would desire to request, or 
whatever way you may put it. that the speeches be as brief as 



348 



STENOGRAPHIC REPORT. 



possible. It makes confusion in the mind when the speeches 
are so long. Even Dr. McAllister's speech would have made 
more impression upon me if it had been two hours long in- 
stead of six. And so in regard to the last speech we have 
heard. It would have had a better impression. I think, if it 
had been only about one third as long. I feel delicate about 
restraining persons in a matter of this kind. 

Rev. J. C. SMITH: I was going to say the same thing. If 
any one wants to condemn their own case, and lose their case 
before this Synod, let them spend two or three hours off the 
question. 

The MODERATOR: The Moderator feels a delicacy in 
calling any one to order. 

Rev. J. S. T. MILL 16 AN : I just want to call attention to 
the fact that it is a very difficult matter for these young men 
in reply to avoid going over the whole ground because those 
who defended Presbytery themselves went over the whole 
ground, and it is perfectly proper for these young men to 
reply to all that was said. Xow, I want to call attention to 
this fact, the efforts on the part of this young man by leav- 
ing out page after page that he thought ougnt to be replied 
to in Presbytery's case. He made every effort, and still, I 
think, not less than live or six times that young man was in- 
terrupted in that manner, when I affirm he did" not in one in- 
stance depart from the matter that had been discussed before 
this Court. Xow I want just to say one thing more : These 
young men have their honor at stake; they have their relation 
to the church of their birth and the church of their love at 
stake, and in this last Court of appeal I beg of you in the 
name of justice, and in the name of humanity, that you give 
them your kind and careful attention. 

Dr. R. B. CANXOX: On that question of order the Pres- 
bytery has a right to go over the whole ground as well as the 
young men at first. That was all right But now I am main- 
taining that it is simply a matter of rejoinder. They speak 
personally for themselves. When those from Presbytery 
come, the}' must not go out of the record. 

The MODERATOR : Rev. H. W. Reed will now address 
the Court in reply to what has been said by the represent- 
atives of Pittsburgh Presbytery. 

Rev. H. W. REED: Fathers and Brethren. I recognize the 
patience and the labor that has been required of you in lis- 
tening to these appeals, and the answers that have been re- 
turned to them by the representatives of Pittsburgh Presby- 
tery, and 1 shall endeavor this evening to be as brief as pos- 
sible and only give utterance to those'things that I deem im- 
portant at the present moment. I simply wish to refer to the 
charge that was made against Brother George by myself, and 
express before this Court my regret for having said what I 
did. I did then feel that the circumstantial evidence justified 



MONDAY, JUNE 8. 



349 



me in uttering those words. Had I done, however, as our 
Saviour commands, and gone to the brother in private con- 
cerning this matter, it would have saved both him and my- 
self much embarrassment; and I wish to make my regret as 
public as the charge was made. 

I appreciate very much the profession of friendship that 
was made by the brother while he was answering that mat- 
ter; and yet while I appreciate the profession of friendship 
it does seem to me that a deed of friendship would have come 
very much in place on last Tuesday, when this Court had be- 
fore it the question of calling us young men to purge our- 
selves of contempt, especially as my contempt was due to the 
advice that the brother himself had given. It would certainly 
have been appreciated at that time to have had that explana- 
tion given in connection with that discussion. 

It is claimed by the representatives of Pittsburgh Presby- 
tery that they began this process in obedience to an act of 
Synod. They referred to the act of Synod which they desired 
to obey. We do not dispute that claim; but we simply make 
this statement : It is certainly a matter of congratulation to 
this Court that the Pittsburgh Presbytery has found one act 
of Synod which it could conscientiously obey. There was an 
act passed in the fifties concerning the necessity of deacons 
in those congregations which should be organized; and since 
that act was passed in the fifties, there have been two congre- 
gations organized in the Pittsburgh Presbytery without dea- 
cons being ordained. 

Rev. D. S. FARIS : I claim that is entirely new matter 
and is out of order, and all such things as that must be ruled 
out. The Synod will not wait for these things. 

The MODERATOR : The Moderator ruled out that same 
matter this morning and trusts that he will not be obliged to 
do so again. 

Rev. H. W. REED : I wish to call to your minds one thing 
that the representatives of Presbytery touched but lightly, and 
that was the causes that lead to holding that East End Meet- 
ing. They begin with the fact of the East End Meeting being 
held, and with the resolution of Presbytery condemning that 
Meeting as having been held without due regard to the act of 
Synod, and as having by its methods and utterances awakened 
apprehensions in the chnrch. You will remember that when 
I spoke to you before I endeavored to show you and point out 
to you those things, those misrepresentations, that led to our 
holding this East End Meeting. These were not answered. 
It may be that I have been guilty of wanting in respect to 
ministerial character; but I wish you to consider that there 
were things afloat in the church since the meeting of the 
Synod in L890, before the holding of the East End Meeting 
that reflected upon ministerial character 

The MODERATOR : This is traveling over the same ground 



350 



STENOGRAPHIC REl'OKT. 



that was gone over before, which is directly contrary to the 
rule. 

Dr. MCALLISTER : I was about to object. Mr. Moderator. 

Rev. J. S. T. MILLIGAN : They are to confine themselves 
to the rejoinder. 

The MODERATOR : The speaker is violating the rule in 
both points; because the same ground is not to be traveled 
over, and he says himself it is not in rejoinder to what was 
said. 

Dr. MCALLISTER : It is a rejoinder to what was not said. 

Rev. J. 8. T. MILLIGAN : Let me ask this question. 

Rev. D. S. FAR IS : I think Mr. Milligan is out of order. And 
I ask you. Mr. Moderator, to rule Mr. Milligan down and de- 
cide the question vourself. 

The MODERATOR : Here is what the book says, not to 
travel over the entire ground. He has traveled over the ground 
which he admits the representatives of Presbytery did not 
touch. 

Rev. H. W. REED : The representatives of Presbytery how- 
ever, said that they did not take motives into consideration. 
Yet they claimed we did intend to hold the East End Meeting. 
That is admitted. When we talked about holding that Meet- 
ing, and w T hen we came together to hold that Meeting we did 
intend to hold that Meeting. Yet they altogether ignored the 
character of that intention. And they not only ignored that, 
but they misrepresented the character of our intention by 
claiming that it was in fact a divisive course. Now this is 
what we den}'. We claim that the character of that intention 
in holding the East End Meeting was to be a healing of divi- 
sions that were already in the church, and not intended to be 
a divisive measure. This matter of the character of our inten- 
tion ought, we think, to weigh in your decision. 

It has been said that there is a great deal of mystery sur- 
rounding the East End Meeting. Perhaps there is. Some of 
this mystery certainly has been cleared up to-day ; and I wish 
to clear up a little more. I attended that East End Meeting 
because of these misrepresentations and of a desire to come to 
an understanding with my brethren. I attended that East End 
Meeting not only for that purpose, but that I might with 
others be able to consult together as to the steps that we should 
take whereby we might confess the sins that we had done, and 
be able again to set ourselves right with the doctrines of the 
church. In 1889, I did vote in favor of the act upon constitu- 
sional amendments ; but I believe now T that I did wrong. I 
came to that conviction shortly after Synod adjourned. I was 
never satisfied with my act at that time. 1 felt that that action 
was at variance with the historic position of the church, and 
that is one reason I came together with these, my misrepre- 
sented brethren, that we might be able to counsel together as 
to the means of undoing that sin that we had committed. 



MONDAY. JUKE 8. 



351 



When we came into that Meeting it was myself, and not an- 
other, that proposed and moved the adoption of the second 
plank of the East End Platform. I moved the adoption of 
that plank as a conservative measure, as a means whereby the 
church might return to her historic ground and be rid of the 
errors and of the mistakes that had been made. I had been 
reading th p sermons of the fathers — Dr. McLeod and Dr. 
Willson. I had been reading these, and I had been reading 
the sermons of Dr. Wylie. I .had been reading the Minutes of 
Presbytery and of the Synod in the early years of her exist- 
ence. I had sought to come to an understanding as well as I 
could of the motive and the grounds upon which our fathers 
acted as they gave this Testimony of ours to the world : and as 
I studied these matters I came to the conciusion that the act 
of 1889 was wrong: and I moved the adoption of that second 
plank as a means whereby we might return to the ground 
occupied by the church in 1806. Admit that 1 did wrong. 
Admit that I made a mistake, that was my purpose; and the 
argument that I used on that occasion was the same argument 
that I am trying to state to you to-day. 1 referred to the 
teachings of the fathers in their writings : I referred to the acts 
of Synod and to the position of the church in the ages that 
are gone by. and having referred to them I moved the adop- 
tion of that plank. 

Now. Fathers and Brethren, let me show you where the 
whole mistake is. it is simply in one word. ••Without binding 
them to our explanation.'''' I am afraid that the fathers in the 
ministry. I am afraid that the brothers in the ministry, and I 
am afraid that the elders in the church, have misunderstood 
the meaning of that word. They have misunderstood the 
meaning of that word and have taken the word as equivalent 
to the word position. Xow. if you would read the second 
item. • -Without binding them to our position of political dis- 
sent and other questions,** then I grant that that plank is 
wrong and chat it would be destructive to the church. But 
what is meant by the term "explanation?" Ah, it is not 
equivalent to ••position.*' The members of Pittsburgh Pres- 
bytery will remember that long address of mine in which I 
quoted from the fathers one after another, and they will re- 
member how tired they became hearing those quotations. I 
myself was lost in the midst of that argument, for it was too 
heavy for me to carry. But what did it show? The tendency 
of the argument was to show that an explanation of the doc- 
trine of political dissent as held by the fathers in one age, did 
not agree with those explanations that were given in another 
age, and that these did not agree with the explanations that 
were given in a later age : and consequently while I have set 
myself to receive the explanations of this doctrine that are 
given in the present day, I did not wish to hold others bound 
to accept the explanations of the same doctrine as given in the 



352 



STENOGRAPHIC REPORT. 



days of our fathers and our grandfathers. And in making room 
for all we added the words. "Without binding them to our 
explanation in the matter of political dissent and other ques- 
tions." 

Dr. R. B. CAXXOX : I submit that this brother is now re- 
plying to matter that was not brought out on the other side. 

Rev. J. S. T. MILLIGAX : Dr. MeAlli ter put his explana- 
tion upon that second plank in the Platform. He occupied a 
whole half day to show that his explanations of it would be 
destructive of the integrity of the church. Xow I believe the 
idea of it was conservative. The idea of that second plank 
was conservative. In other words, it suited my case as it 
suits this brother's case, and the speaker is showing that in- 
stead of carrying the church off its base it is asking the church 
to rescind those explanations that are antagonistic to the 
Testimony and the Covenant in its proper acceptation. And 
I submit that he has a right to occupy half an hour on a posi - 
tion, about which the brother occupied half a day. misrepre- 
senting him. misrepresenting me and a large portion of this 
church. 

Rev. D. S. FAR1S: I think if that is a point of order he 
ought to state it and then quit. We do not want a speech. 

Rev. J. S. T. MILLIGAX : You do not want anything from 
me. but you will have to take a little. 

The MODERATOR : The speaker will proceed. 

Rev. H. W. REED : It was stated by the representatives of 
Pittsburgh Presbytery that there was introduced an argument 
trying to prove that this whole matter of political "dissent 
should be left to the individual conscience. I presume they 
referred to what I said in part, though others may have walked 
upon the same ground. Xow, I confess I did do that: and I 
believe that my language has been partially misunderstood. 
They have taken their meaning from the words I used, and it 
might have been better to have used other words, but I simply 
wish to make this statement : That I meant nothing else by 
that argument than what I understood the church herself to 
mean when she adopted the resolution concerning the writing 
of the Act, Declaration and Testimony in 1804. These resolu- 
tions, I suppose, are not in order to -day to be read, because 
they are new matter, but I wish to point you to them, and 
you will find them on the 13th page of the Minutes of the Re- 
formed Presbyterian church from 1801 to 1806, published by 
the editors of the Reformed Presbyterian and Covenanter. I 
simply meant by that statement the same thing and nothing 
more than the church meant on the 15th day of May, 1806, 
when this Declaration and Testimony was adopted after prayer 
had been offered to God, and on which day after this Testi- 
mony had been adopted there was taken this action: "Mr. 
Wylie was appointed to prepare a particular Testimony against 
the constitution of the United States and against the constitu- 



MONDAY, JUNE 



358 



tions of each of the States to present .to . 'he next meeting of 
Presbytery." In other words, I understood the fathers to 
mean that this particular Testimony against the constitution 
of the United States meant a part of the argumentative Testi- 
mony of the church that was not yet written, and that they 
were making provisions for the writing of the argumentative 
Testimony, Mr. Wyiie being appointed to write this part of it. 
I depended entirety upon the record; I never went for one 
moment outside of the record or outside of the writings of 
men who are highly esteemed in the church for their works' 
sake. These were the motives and these were the reasons why 
I moved in the East End Meeting the adoption of the second 
plank. Certainly if anyone ought to be responsible for the 
error in that plank I ought to be. 

There are other matters concerning this that I would like to 
refer to, but I shall pass them by. 1 will pass by the Elders' 
Convention. Mr. M^Clurkin has denied the statements of an 
interview that has been brought to your attention, and I pass 
that by and come to another point. In papers that were pre- 
sented to Pittsburgh Presbytery, among these memorials was 
one from the Union congregation, requesting Pittsburgh Pres- 
bytery to take this Platform, and this Meeting, and compare it 
with the standards of the church, and decide whether or not 
it was consistent with them. Xow that was not done. 

Did we have an organization? Did we form an organization 
at the East Mnd Meeting ? There seems to be a vital question. 
In the call for the Elders' Convention it is said that we had 
^already formed an organization. You will find in the call 
-and in some of the memorials that came before the Pittsburgh 
Presbytery in October last the same thing is asserted, that we 
had formed an organization. 

ZSTow, when we were called upon by the Pres lytery to make 
our statements concerning this East End Meeting and East 
End Platform 1 supposed all the time and never doubted for a 
moment that the Presbytery was acting on the ground that an 
organization had been formed. I may be mistaken, but that 
was the impression in my own mind, and hence in my state- 
ment before Presbytery I neither affirmed nor denied that an 
organization had been formed. Indeed, I never referred to it, 
and whatever inference may be taken from it, the impression 
in my own mind was that there was no need of making any 
statement concerning it. I then believed than an organization 
had been formed. I believe I did say in Presbytery that I 
thought an organization had been formed. I believe I said 
likewise in Presbytery that I was opposed to forming an or- 
ganization at the East End Meeting. Now I wish to make a 
statement here. The question of forming an organization was 
before the East End Meeting, and I did oppose it. I thought 
the motion carried, but it seems to be the case that it did not 
'•any, and that my opposition had something to do with the 



354 



STENOGRAPHIC REPORT. 



defeat of the measure. Now. Fathers and Brethren, this may 
help to clear that difficulty. Some thought it carried ; I did.. 
Other claimed that it dia not. Reference to the notes of that 
Meeting as kept does not justify the claim that it was carried* 
and hence the measure was defeated, though it was talked 
about. It was only in the process as one thing and another 
came up that we were led to iaquire more closely as to the- 
existence and meaning of this act. 

There were certain papers submitted to Presbytery by Dr. 
McAllister, by Prof. Willson and by Dr. Sproull, to which 
reference has alread}' been made. I shall pass them by and 
come to a statement concerning our conference with the Ju- 
dicial Committee. I now believe it was a committee : I then 
thought it was a commission. That Committee met in the 
morning by themselves. We were asked to be present in the 
afternoon. We were not present when Dr. Sproull constituted 
it as a commission. We were not present when Dr. George 
(if it was he and I believe it was) corrected him as to his- 
mistake, and told him it was only a committee. We were not 
present when Dr. Sproull was corrected in that mistake, be- 
cause that transpired in the forenoon of that day. They then 
prepared this basis of settlement to be offered to us, and it- 
was all in readiness when we came together with them on the- 
afternoon of the 22nd of October. When we came to meet with 
them the basis of settlement was ready, and a statement con- 
cerning tfiis basis w as made. The statement was something- 
like this. There was an effort to put into it over our sig- 
natures. w T hat we had admitted before Presbytery when we 
made our statements. It was simply an effort to put our own 
language in the words. We were astonished, or at least I was 
astonished, because it was so liberal; they conceded so much 
tons; it was far more than I thought would be conceded- 
They granted us more than I had hoped to have granted. In- 
deed, Fathers and Brethren, I came to that Judicial Commit- 
tee expecting a far stronger conservative statement than was- 
presented to us by the Committee itself. It was this liberality 
in this basis of settlement that astonished us. And then there 
w r as another thing. Dr. Sproull was the spokesman. Xot an- 
other member of the Committee uttered a word. For he If an 
hour at least and perhaps longer they were as quiet as quiet 
could be. Dr. Sproull was arguing with us. and was not suc- 
ceeding in persuading us to sign that basis. We were hesita- 
ting about signing it because we hardly understood it. and 
there was doubt in our minds as to the meaning of the terms. 
We were hesitating to sign it. while we were willing to accept 
it. By and by one after another of the other members began 
speaking. In beginning to speak they gave utterance to this 
statement, viz. : That they had agreed to let Dr. Sproull be 
the spokesman while they themselves would not utter a single 
word. But now, looking at us, they saw we were not angry r 



MONDAY, JUNE 8. 



355 



and they thought they could interfere on the ground of friend- 
ship, and we blamed them not for it. 1 was silent for a few 
minutes, at all events for a little while, for when we entered 
that committee-room there was certainly something that we 
could not understand nor explain. Besides they did not ex- 
plain to us then whether it was a commission or a committee. 
They knew of Dr. Sproull's mistake. They knew that Dr. 
Sproull had invited us to be present. I do not suppose that 
they thought for a moment of the confusion that existed in 
our minds. Now, it may be that other matters of greater im- 
portance had taken possession of their minds ; but had they 
thought of it, then was their favorable opportunity to have 
asked us the question, whether we were dealing with a com- 
mission or with a committee, and to have relieved us of a mis- 
understanding. That question was never asked, and we went 
out from the Meeting, believing that it was a commission. 

During that conference this question was asked Dr. Sproull : 
We might sign that basis; you might be willing to agree with 
us to this as a basis af settlement; yet we must remember 
that the Presbytery as a court must take action upon it, and 
they may not be satisfied with it. That question was a^ked. 
What then? We are dealing with you; but this goes to the 
court to whom you are responsible. This is not the language 
but it is the idea, for I was the one that asked the question. Dr. 
Sproull returned this answer: "We will use all our influence, 
all the influence in our power, to have Presbytery accept this 
basis of settlement, unchanged.' 1 Not another member of 
the Committee said a word. By their silence they concurred 
in the promise that had been made by the chairman, and we 
depended upon that. There were other matters came in. to 
which we need not refer, as we do not wish to take up your 
time. Finally we gave our consent. We did not sign ; \a e gave 
our consent. 

Permit me here to ask you to give attention to the meaning 
of terms. Dr. George again and again in his address said we 
signed that basis. Now he did not mean to convey to you the 
impression that we had signed, but it \vassimph r the language 
that came to him; and he told you at the time that he wished 
you to understand all 1he time that we had simply given our 
assent. But some might think we had signed, and hence you 
would misrepresent us when you would take that lar.gn; g< to 
mean that we had signed this bans. 

Dr. GEORG K : I said that at the time. 

Rev. H. W. REED : Ke stated this at the time. Now here 
is where attention is needed. We ask you to remember what 
these words mean to us, and as these words mean to us either 
to acquit or to condemn us. We passed out of that Commit- 
tee, and the members of the Committee remained behind. It 
was after we had left them that they took the action : s to 
calling a special meeting of Presbyteiy, not before. We knew 



3S6 



STENOGRAPHIC REPORT. 



aothing of their action calling a special meeting of Presbytery, 
for that was not talked of in our presence. We ran into a 
aiimber of newspaper reporters, and there were smiles upon 
our faces, of course, for we were all smiling, even the mem- 
bers of the Committee were smiling before we went out, and 
we were shaking hands one with another. And if you would 
look in the report in the paper the next morning in which it 
was called "A victory for the liberals,' ' you would find they 
based that upon the smiles we wore on our faces, and not upon 
anything we said. Not one of us said a word to any one of 
these reporters as to what had taken place in that meeting. 
We simply said, "The members of the Committee are inside; 
oall on them and make your inquiries." 

Of course, when we returned to our congregations they 
d-e&ired to know what had taken place. All I said to my 
people was, 4 -We have agreed upon a basis of settlement, but 
we are not at libertj^ to make known the terms of this basis 
until Presbytery meets, which will be next April." And they 
were astonished that it would be kept quiet so long. I did not 
know that it was intended to call a special meeting of Pres- 
bytery for the 4th of November. Hence, they cannot charge 
upon us, after what you have heard to-day concerning that 
matter, any breach of faith in making known the terms of the 
basis of settlement. Nor did we ever claim to have achieved 
a victory over the conservatives. The report in the paper 
was as much a surprise to us as to them ; and I regretted the 
report in the paper as much as any other man could possibly 
do; for I felt that there would go out to the church, and 
especially to the members of the Judicial Commission, a mis- 
representation, and an impression that we had broken faith. 

I pass on to the resolutions. Yet, I need hardly refer to 
them. Reference is made to an item in our Banner; and you 
have had it pointed out to you to-day, Fathers and Brethren, 
that that article in the Banner was not seen or read here 
until the 7th of November, and we claim that the wrong was 
done us on the 4th of November; hence, that item in the 
Banner (I can't explain it for I know nothing about it) was 
no inducement to bring in these resolutions on the 4th of 
November. But the brother admitted another thing. He ad- 
mitted that he had a conversation with his brother-in-law. 
He did not tell him the basis of agreement. The brother- 
in-law perhaps gave his opinion upon the newspaper report. 
He could base it upon nothing else. And by reason of his ob- 
jections to that basis, whatever it was, it was unknown to him. 
and by reason of letters received from brethren in the East, he 
brought in these resolutions to satisfy the church. Now, he 
was a member of the Judicial Committee at the time he 
brought in these resolutions. We understood the members of 
that Judicial Committee to have pledged themselves to use 
their influence to have Presbytery adopt this basis without 



MONDAY, JUNE 8. 



357 



change, and if any should be made the responsibility should 
rest upon Presbytery, and not upon those who were memberi 
of the Judicial Committee. He brought in those resolutions. 
That his motives were true and good, we do not dispute; but 
they were a surprise to us. And, Friends, we were walking 
in the midst of surprises. Every step that was taken in this 
course was a surprise, and the surprises often times confused 
our judgment, and we said and did things that afterwards we 
regretted having done. We were sorry we had done them. 
But here was a surprise. Here was this confusion of our judg- 
ment; here was this confusion of our mind. We could 
scarcely understand what these things meant : and not under- 
standing these things in that meeting of Presbytery of the 4th 
of November, I am free to admit that' we made many mistakes. 
Nevertheless these mistakes should not be charged against 
us, because we did not understand fully the motives and pur- 
poses of Dr. George as he brought in those resolutions. Dr. 
Sproull and Dr. McAllister objected to considering those reso- 
lutions at the time. We thought they were surprised as well 
as ourselves. We would not have objected to them having 
come in in a separate way, but it was proposed to take them 
up and adopt them in connection with this report. Then did 
we learn that it was a Judicial Committee. He proposed that 
they take it up in connection with this report, and our under- 
standing of these resolutions was that they would be a rider 
upon the report. Now that was a misunderstanding, but that 
was the understanding of our own minds at the time ; and be- 
cause of that when the resolution was adopted we withdrew 
our assent, some of us f om the third item, others of us from 
the whole basis of agreement. 

I understood myself as having withdrawn my assent. I am 
free to admit it, from the whole basis of agreement; while 
others did specify the third item of that basis. The testi- 
mony on which the verdict was reached during the tiial, has 
been gone over by Dr. McAllister We have referred to it 
briefly under another point, and shall not take up time here. 
I only desire to say this : I have always felt that there was a 
wrong done to us, or a wrong done to me. by reason of the 
admission I made before Presbytery on the 15th or 16th of 
October. It may be again that 1 am misunderstood, but 
nevertheless, with the understanding that I have I felt that 
there was wrong done me. Had I known that that admission 
would be the testimony against me. I certainly would not on 
the t6th of October i it was either the loth or 16th) have made 
any statement. I would have left them to have got their 
proof. 

One other point : Dr. McAllister has given his reasoning as 
to the power and effect of appeals in staying proceedings. I 
was certainly interested, and received much instruction. I con- 
fess, and I am glad to confess it, in what he said concerning 



35S 



STENOGRAPHIC REPORT. 



this matter. But he said so much that was new to me, so 
much that had not been given to me in the Theological Sem- 
inary, and indeed some of it seemed to be contrary to the in- 
struction I received in the Seminary (I am only depending 
upon my memory) . It seemed to me to be so contrary to 
those instructions. I have felt myself in a fog. and particularly 
as he quoted from the old Scottish law. And I totice he read 
one item from that old Scottish law that I will read: "An 
appeal being made by parties, should sist the execution of the 
sentence appealed from, only while the appeal is duly and 
diligently prosecuted, and may thereby be determined, other- 
wise not; unless the judicature appealed to receive the appeal 
and take the affair before them : in that case the judicature 
appealed from is to sist till the appeal be discussed." Then 
here is one item that the Doctor did not read, which is like- 
wise in the same old Scottish law: "Sentences are in them- 
selves null when pronounced against the general acts of the 
church, or by an incompetent judge.'* And then the incom- 
petent judge is defined; "As the sentences of Kirk Sessions 
against ministers, or even by Presbytery and Synod, when the 
process is carried and admitted before their superior judica- 
tures." Our own Book states that an appeal is the removal 
of a case. 

Dr. MCALLISTER : Go on with the quotation. 

Rev. H. W. REED : I am trying to rind the words. "An 
appeal is the removal of a case already decided by an inferior 
judicatory to a superior judicatory by a parts* aggrieved. Xone 
but parties can appeal.** Then here is a section which the 
Doctor did not read: "An aggrieved party may protest 
against the whole or any part of the proceedings, or of a sen- 
tence of a judicatory, delivering such protest, with the rea- 
sons of it to the judicatory which conducted the process, ac- 
companied with an appeal to the next superior, of which 
protest and reasons a copy shall be presented to the judica- 
tory to which the appeal is made.'* 

Xow I did think that an appeal from the admissibility of 
the libel carried it to the superior court, though I did not ap- 
peal from the admissibility ; I did think that "an appeal from 
the relevancy of the libel would carry it to the superior court, 
though I did not appeal at that time. But I do think that an 
appeal from the verdict rinding us guilty of the charge con- 
tained in the libel, stay.- the proceedings at that point and I 
have based my belief and thoughts concerning that matter 
upon this Book of Discipline, and upon the instructions as I 
remember them received from the Professor in our Theologi- 
cal Seminary. 

1 grant you that we are young men: and we have much to 
learn. But ought the mistakes of youth in a case that affects 
our relation to the church of our birth and the church of our 
love, concerning matters in which we were mistaken or mis- 



MONDAY, JUNE 8. 



35 9 



led, or which we misunderstood, he used against us to the 
■calling of us to answer for contempt of court because we did 
not respect that which we thought the Court had no right to 
<lo? Xow, Fathers and Brethren, I wish to close. And I ask 
.you to sustain our appeals and our complaints for the reasons 
I have given, and for the sake of the church whose interest 
you have before you, and with which we are all identified, in 
which we have been born, and which we love with all our 
hearts. We do riot ask you to endorse the East End Meeting. 
We do not ask you to endorse the East End Platform. You 
may take whatever action concerning these matters you 
please, provided you maintain the right of the minority to 
testify against the defection of the majority; provided you 
maintain the principle that a minority in a question of prin- 
ciple is not bound to submit to the majority ; provided you 
maintain th ese principles of our own Testimony, in the ab- 
stract case, you may take whatever act:'on with the concrete 
case you wis h. But remember, we felt ourselves walking in 
the midst of surprises, taken on this side and on that side; 
every action of ours misrepresented, as it seemed to us ; our 
own youth and our own ignorance are to be taken into ac- 
count: and, taking these thirgs into cors'dei ation, you ought 
at least to sustai n our appeals : nd allow us, again to work in 
the ministry of the church of our birth and in the church c f 
our love. 

I wish likewise to say this upon my own behalf, that I 
would be willing, and did many times promise (when they 
talked of leaving the whole case to Synod without action), 
not to refer to a single thing concerning the East End Meet- 
ing and the Platform in any preaching that 1 should do, or in 
any writing that I should publish. Ay. and I wish to bring 
this likewise to your minds : When we met with the Judicial 
Committee and agreed to that basis of agreement, there had 
been sent by me certain articles to be published in the News 
JLetier, and as soon as I returned to my home that evening, on 
the 22nd of October, I sent word to Mr. Carson not to publish 
those articles, and they are lying in his pigeon hole to this 
day. There is how I kept that basis of agreement. I wish to 
do nothing to disturb the peace of the church. I never 
preached the doctrines of the East End Platform from my 
pulpit, but I endeavored to present God's own truth as taught 
in our Testimony for the instruction of our own people, and 
for the enlightenment of others who came to worship with us. 
We felt ourselves loyal to the old Covenanter church, and we 
have desired at all times with all the strength that we have, 
to join with our brothers in waving the old blue banner "for 
■Christ's crown and covenant" till the kingdoms of the world 
acknowledge him as their Prince, Saviour and Lord. 

The MODERATOR: The Rev. W. L. C. Samson now has 



360- 



STENOGRAPHIC REPORT. 



an opportunity of addressing the Court in reply to the repre- 
sentatives of Pittsburgh Presbytery. 

Kev. W. L. C. SAMSON: Dear Fathers and Brethren: I 
confess I am a little perplexed, as I appear before you to make 
my rebuttal, by the arguments advanced by those appointed 
to defend the action of Presbytery. I tried in presenting my 
case to avoid all personalities. I eliminated one or two per- 
sonal references I had in my manuscript, in order to avoid 
making any personal reference. But as I am here before you 
now in rebuttal, I must confess, if I speak along the line of 
those who have been appointed to defend Presbytery's action,. 
I must make personal references ; if I shall make personal 
references, I want it to be understood by the members of the 
Court, and by those to whom I make reference, it is not my 
desire so to do. 

The first point advanced by the first gentleman who spoke 
in defence of Presbytery's action had reference to reflections 
that had been made on ministerial integrity, with reference 
to reflections that had been made upon himself. Now I ap- 
preciate the situation in which the gentleman was placed ; 
and in reply to that let me ask the members of this Court to 
put themselves in my place as I stood'before Pittsburgh Pres- 
bytery last fall, and see if there were not references made 
that did affect ministerial integrity. True. Presbytery may 
have brought no formal charge against my integrity of char- 
acter; but nevertheless, dear Fathers and Brethren, there 
were those insinuations, those informal charges, that were 
before that Court that did affect my ministerial integrity. 
Does it not affect ministerial integrity to be charged indirectly 
as a heretic? Does it not affect one's niinisterial integrity to 
be charged as an apostate? Does it not affect one's ministerial 
integrity to be charged as a covenant breaker? Does it not 
affect ministerial integrity to be charged as being one who is 
insubordinate? Ah, put yourself in my place, and you will 
see it did. Let the gentlemen who stood on the floor of this- 
Court and fought for their personal characters so much, stand 
where I stood when the memorials from the different congre- 
gations came in, from which memorials were drawn the 
charges that were indirectly contained in the report of the 
Committee on Discipline, and see whether or not they will 
regard themselves as being touched in their ministerial in- 
tegrity. 

So, Brethren, while those who were before you in defence 
of Pittsburgh Presbytery's action, may have defended their 
own ministerial integrity, I say we are here appealing to you 
to defend our ministerial integrity from charges, either formal 
or informal, that h <ve affected us. And so while there was 
reference to the protection of ministerial integrity on one side 
of the house, we think we have just as good a right to appeal 
for the protection of our characters as have the others.. 



MONDAY, JUNE 8. 



361 



Another statement to which we would ask your attention is 
this : They say that Pittsburgh Presbytery has kept silent to- 
this hour. You were informed when the first defendant arose 
to defend Pittsburgh Presbytery's action that you would here 
and now hear for the first time the defence of the Pittsburgh 
Presbytery. Such a statement to me seems strange when I 
recollect in the Reformed Presbyterian and Covenanter a Pas- 
toral Letter, written and put forth by the Moderator and clerk 
of Pittsburgh Presbytery, which was certainly a defence of 
Pittsburgh Presbytery's action. That Pastoral Letter, which 
is ten and one-half pages long, was published in the Reform- 
ed Presbyterian and Covenanter. And yet we are told by the 
defendant to "Listen to him and hear the first defence of 
Pittsburgh Presbytery." I cannot understand it. 

Place that statement also in connection with the fact that 
at different times there appeared in the Christian Nation 
articles from members of Pittsburgh Presbytery, evidently 
defending Pittsburgh Presbytery's course in the suspension of 
seven ministers from the exercise of their office, and I cannot 
reconcile them. 

You have seen scattered through this church a sermon 
preached by one of the men who defended Presbytery's 
action. And that sermon, according to the very heading of 
it, is defence of Pittsburgh Presbytery's action indirectly. At 
the very beginning of it we read, "It is the purpose of the 
discourse to apply this text to the settlement of the question 
now agitating the Covenanter church." If this is not a de- 
fence of Pittsburgh Presbytery's action, I know not what a 
defence is. Yet the man who preached that sermon, when it 
had been published in the Christian Nation and scattered 
through this church, ay, and had been kept in the back part 
of this house for days ; stood here and intimated that from 
him and from his colleague we would hear the first defence 
of Pittsburgh Presbyteiy. I cannot reconcile the fact with 
the statement. 

Rev. J. C. SMITH : I hope there will not be much more of 
this. It does not matter in this case whether Dr. George 
stated the fsct or not, as to whether that was the first defence. 
I do not see that it makes any difference. 

Rev. Mr. SAMSON": I approve of that. 

The MODERATOR: The prosecutors will not consume 
time that does not count. 

Rev. Mr. SAMSON": The one speaking in defence of Pres- 
bytery brought before you the fact that upon reports which 
appeared in the public press. Presbytery's case rested. Upon 
the reports that appeared in the Commercial Gazette, as those 
reports were used and interpreted, the heading of the Plat- 
form, the call for the Elders' Convention, was drawn up. 
That Elders' Convention call prepared things for memorials: 
the memorials prepared things for the. Committee on Disci- 



STENOGRAPHIC REPORT. 



pline: the report of the Committee on Discipline prepared 
.things for putting us in the toils, and prepared things for our 
.standing here before you. Analyze the case, and it rests on a 
.report of the East End Meeting and the East End Platform 
that appeared in the Pittsburgh Commercial Gazette. There 
is not a member of Pittsburgh Presbytery that would want a 
•case brought against him the basis of which was reports that 
-appeared in newspapers. Those who are defending Presby- 
tery's actions would not for one moment want a case brought 
before this Synod against them the basis of which would be 
articles that have appeared in the press since this Synod 
began to sit. Go before Judge White here in the Criminal 
Court and attempt to base a case upon newspaper reports and 
see how long it would last. 

Members of this Synod, I ask you in the name of justice and 
right to analyze the argument that was advanced by those 
who defended Presbytery's action, and to look at the case as 
they presented it to you, go down to the foundation at which 
they started, and see if their case does not rest upon reports 
that appeared in the public press. 

The fact was brought to Presbytery's attention, it is con- 
ceded, in the regular way by memorial. Yet these memorials, 
taken in connection with the Scriptural injunction contained 
in the Gospel of Matthew, 18th chapter, never would have 
come to Presbytery, I feel, had those who were concerned in 
them come to one of us personally. And right in this con- 
nection let me say, we were before Pittsburgh Presbytery, 
and on trial for days, and not a prayer was offered for us; and 
we were in this Synod for days before a prayer was ever 
offered for those who were subject to discipline. Now, those 
men may stand before you and represent that they acted ac- 
cording to the law and order of the church. But that fact 
does not show, to my mind at least, that the spirit of the 
Lord Jesus Christ was the spirit that animated them in their 
action against us. There is but one member of the ministry 
of the Covenanter church that to this present time ever came 
to me and plead with me to turn back. I honor that man, and 
I will remember him as long as I live. 

While these memorials were brought in in regular form; 
while the case may have been carried on in forms that were 
regular, nevertheless they, taken in connection with the 
Scriptural injunction found in the 18th chapter of Matthew's 
Gospel, go to show that the whole case, resting on newspaper 
reports, was not carried forward in a Christian spirit, and 
how could you expect it to be under the circumstances? 

One of the points in my complaint was a complaint of in- 
justice and wrong with reference to the manner in which 
Presbytery secured the evidence by which it attempted to 
irame the libel. Now just to show the full character of that 
report I would like to read a part of it. The memorials were 



MONDAY, JUNE 8. 



363 



a-ef erred to the Committee on Discipline ; they are enumerated 
by the Committee ; and it stated the matter that was contained 
in each and every one of them. Then comes the first part: 
^The matters complained of are of the most grave and serious 
character: 1. False and heretical teaching contrary to the 
Word of God and the accepted standards of the church. 2. 
Following divisive courses by assailing clearly defined doc- 
trines and practices of the church. 3. Covenant breaking 
and apostasy in departing from past attainments and violat- 
ing our sworn engagements. 4. Breaches of official trust by 
disregard of simple ordination vows, and the use of influential 
positions to break down what the church intrusted them to 
maintain. 5. Insubordination to Synod, and contempt of its 
authority.*' 

Then comes the second part: u l. The facts upon which 
these charges are based are the positions openly avowed on 
the floor of Synod, and in the publications of the church, and 
•especially by the Meeting held in the East End K. P. church. 
2. The express decision of Synod, 'that Synod disapproves 
and emphatically condemns, and warns the members of the 
church against the teaching or publishing of sentiments con- 
trary to and subversive of the well established principles of 
the church and the practical application of her Testimony 
against the irreligious institutions of the nation; and that 
Presbyteries are hereby enjoined to see that this direction is ob- 
served.'' " 

Then coming down to the fourth part, where the Commit- 
tee made its recommendation, we read: "1. That the con- 
sideration of this report be preceded by a season of reverent 
devotion and prayer to God, during which we engage our- 
selves to draw very near the Searcher of all our hearts, and 
to cherish the most tender and fraternal regard among our- 
selves, and that we will faithfully follow the light which God 
shall vouchsafe to us in answer to our humble prayers." 
Then, following the hour for prayer, came the opportunity 
for making statements : u That, following this hour of prayer, 
an opportunity shall be given to all the brethren named to 
make such statements in regard to the matters set forth in 
these memorials, as they think best; that, if possible, by the 
most frank, open and candid expression of views and pur- 
poses we may come to see eye to eye, and mutual confidence 
be restored." 

Now, the impression that was on my mind when we came 
to that section was, the olive branch was held out; that if we 
would make a ull statement of what was meant and under- 
stood by us with reference to the East End Meeting, if it was 
not contrary to the principles and practices of the church, 
there would be a final settlement of the whole matter ; that 
the difficulties then and there would be adjusted. 

I think if I will call to your mind a fact or two in reference 



364 



STENOGRAPHIC REPORT. 



to that Meeting, to which so much reference has been made 
by those who have appeared defending Presbytery's action, 
it will show you that Presbytery was convinced we had not 
purposed following a divisive course. We made our state- 
ments one after another. As has been indicated, during the 
time we were making the statements, old Father Sproull 
seemed uneasy and wanted to know if opportunity would not 
be given to others to speak: when we had finished making 
our statements, then I think it was that he took the floor and 
made a statement of his own. applicable to the case. Bat 
during the time we were making statements, the Moderator 
indicated that when we were through, other members of the 
Court would have an opportunity of making statements. 
Now if. in making statements, we had advanced that which 
was heretical, or that which was in the nature of apostasy, 
that which was so very insubordinate, when we had finished, 
you would have found more than one member of Pittsburgh 
Presbytery clamoring for the floor in order that we might 
be cashiered. What was the effect of our statements? 

Father Sproull made his statement. The Moderator then 
indicated that other members of the Court would have an 
opportunity to make statements. Did any member of the 
Court respond immediately? Xo. there was silence. The 
Moderator repeated his statement, that members of the Court 
would have an opportunity to make statements or remarks in 
reply to the statements that had been made. Still there was 
silence. The third time. I think it was. the Moderator re- 
peated that statement, and no man said a word. At last the 
Moderator himself spoke to this effect. That if no one had 
anything to say he would make some remarks, and called. I 
think it was old Dr. Sproull. to the chair, and made a speech 
that opened the remarks. He was followed by others. But 
there was confusion of tongues: some said one thing and 
some said another. The reason why Pittsburgh Presbytery 
at that time. I think, did not proceed against us and suspend 
us was because the members of the Court felt we had not 
gone so very far wrong. 

You will remember that in the speeches in defence of Pitts- 
burgh Presbytery some parts of the East End Platform were 
characterized in terms that branded it as very heretical at 
least. It was held up with scorn: epithets were applied to it. 
It was that which, if adhered to. would lead the church into 
apostasy. It was spoken of in no measured terms. In an- 
other connection and in another place in those speeches, 
which were made in defence of Pittsburgh Presbytery, this 
fact was brought out. that they would permit us to continue 
in our pastorates adhering to the East End Platform, provided 
we would not propagate ft in a manner that was disorderly. 
For by accepting that basis that was offered to us in the Ju- 
dicial Committee, we would adhere to the Ea-t End Platform 



MONDAY, JUNE 8. 



365 



and continue in the work of the Lord in the Covenanter 
church. On the one hand the Platform is held up as that 
which would lead the church into apostasy if adhered to; in 
another part of the speeches those who defended the action of 
the Pittsburgh Presbytery admitted we could have stayed in 
the church, adhering to- that .Platform, provided we had held 
to the basis that was presented to us by the Pittsburgh Pres- 
bytery. 

Now, if what those men stated about that Platform was 
true, and they were willing to let us stay in the membership 
in the Pittsburgh Presbytery, stay as pastors of congregations 
in this part of the Lord's house; it seems to me that Presby- 
tery ought to be brought before the Synod for being particeps 
criminis in allowing us to continue in office as pastors when 
we were adhering to such a heretical document as they repre- 
sent that East End Platform to be. Those two statements, 
Members of the Synod, I cannot reconcile. One the one hand 
the Platform seemed filled with villainy ; at the same time, 
while we adhered to it, if we could accept Presbytery's basis 
we could continue in our pastorates. Those statements, made 
by the men who defended the action of Pittsburgh Presbytery 
in your own hearing, are prima facie evidence that the Plat- 
form is not so bad as some have represented it to be. 

Another thing; it was charged that the breach of faith by 
the young men with reference to the Judicial Committee in 
making known that which transpired in the Judicial Com- 
mittee was that which led to the introduction of the resolu- 
tions that were to be considered in connection with the basis 
submitted to us by the Judicial Committee. I will not state 
this as a fact, but my impression is, that I was the one who 
made the suggestion at that meeting of the Judicial Commit- 
tee with reference to keeping the transactions of that meeting 
away from the public press. And I will give you the circum- 
stances. It has been indicated that when we 'were there be- 
fore the Committee, knocks came at the door; the knocks 
were responded to, and when the one who responded came 
back, it was stated that reporters were there wanting to know 
what was being carried on, and wanting some information. 
Now in conversing with reference to this statement that was 
submitted to us, I made a statement to this effect: That I had 
been connected with the East End Platform in putting it out, 
having as the design of it the correcting of current misrepre- 
sentations; but that instead of correcting misrepresentations 
it had made them more numerous in that it gave opportunity 
to those who wished to speak against us, to have some basis 
for their remarks; and if this basis that was submitted to us 
was to be misrepresented as much as the East End Platform 
had been misrepresented, I did not want to give assent to it, 
and if the thing was going to be published, by so doing it 
would be, to use an odd expression (I do not know whether I 



STENOGRAPHIC REJfOKT. 



used it there or not), simply jumping out of the frying pan> 
into the fire. Now, that taken in connection with the fact 
that reporters were then appearing. Jed me, I think it was. to- 
suggest that this basis be kept away from the public press, for 
it had been the misrepresentations in the public press, I felt, 
that had caused in a great measure this trouble that was agi- 
tating us at that time. 

My understanding-with reference to the obligation that was 
there entered into was not that I could not speak to my wife 
with reference to what was done there : was not that I could 
not go home to my congregation and say that the matter was 
amicably settled; was not that I could not speak to my elders 
and tell them in general terms what was done, but it was that 
that basis should be kept away from the public press. 

As has been indicated, when we came out here were a num- 
ber of reporters waiting to get a statement with reference to 
what had occurred in the Committee. You will find further 
on that the reporters got nothing from these young men who 
were in that Committee; they kept their pledge to keep the 
basis of settlement, the ideas that might be contained there- 
in, away from the public press. Butlt seemed to me that, 
even if we had uot kept the agreement entered into with, 
reference to the basis ; even if we had been writing : even if 
we had revealed what had taken place in that Committee 
meeting. — according to the principle that two wrongs never 
make a right, that fact would not have justified the introduc- 
tion of the resolutions to be considered in connection with the 
basis of the Judicial Committee which was presented to Pres- 
bytery for consideration. 1 hat we had done wrong did not 
justify others in doing wrong and violating the covenant we 
had entered into there, or that which seemed to us at tte time 
to be a violation of it. 

Now I come to the meeting of Presbytery where the basis, 
brought up in the Committee and assented to by the young 
men, was presented. Presbytery was constituted. There 
were some devotional exercises, if I recollect rightly, and 
then Dr. Sproull. as the chairman of the CommiUre made his- 
report. As soon as the report was made. I think it was Bro- 
ther Crowe who moved that the report be accepted and 
adopted. But just at that point, before there was a second, 
arose a member of the Judicial Committee who had given to- 
us the right hand of fellowship, and who. we had understood 
in the Judicial Committee, would come to that meeting of 
Presbytery and defend that basis, and stand between it and 
any misrepresentation, made a ten minutes speech, or rome- 
thing like that, and presented three resolutions to be consid- 
ered in connection with the basis presented to Pittsburgh 
Presbytery. 

Let me now go b^ck just a little. When I received notice 
of the meeting of Pittsburgh Presbytery, to act on the basis- 



MONDAY, JUNE 8. 



presented by the Judicial Committee, I was somewhat takert 
back. I had understood (I do not know what reason I had 
for so understanding) that there would be no called meeting 
of Presbytery until the regular meeting in the spring; and 
the first thought that came to my mind was: what does this 
mean? I banished it with this thought: The members of the 
Judiciary Committee have thought this matter over, and they 
have come to the conclusion that it is better to call a meeting 
of Presbytery and present this basis of settlement, and get the 
whole thing finished up. The idea that was in my mind in 
reference to this motive in calling that meeting of Presbytery 
to consider the basis presented by the Judicial Committee, 
w r as one which attributed to them intention? which were good 
with reference to the calling of that meeting of Presbytery. 

Now you can imagine my surprise when, after that Com- 
mittee made its report, and the basis was presented, when 
there was a motion that it be received and adopted, and be- 
fore that was seconded, a member of that Committee arose on 
the floor and made a ten minutes speech, or something like 
that, that rubbed the hair the wrong way, and then presented 
three resolutions as preliminary to the adoption of the 
basis of settlement. I had come there to that meeting of 
Presbytery, thinking that soon this whole matter would be 
settled. I was in good spirits. But when these remaiks were 
made, and those resolutions introduced, my heart sank; I felt 
that we had been betrayed, and I think I used that expression 
that day along in the afternoon with reference to the manner 
in which those resolutions were brought in. 

Put yourself in the place of the young men ; have hanging 
over you five or six charges, such as were contained in that 
report of the Committee on Discipline; have it settled, as you 
think, by a basis presented by a committee for that purpose; 
come to a meeting of Presbytery, and then have a member, 
who has given you the right hand of fellowship and pledged 
himself to stand between you and any misrepresentation of 
that bas s. arise and present three resolutions in connection 
with the basis, and you not understanding any reason he 
should have for so do'ng and I think your heart would go 
down too. If those whu were so concerned in the action of 
Pittsburgh Presbytery had been in our places, they, too, 
would have thought they had been betrayed. 

But now. in the meeting of Presbytery, when those reso- 
lutions were presented in connection with the r pert o; ine 
Judicial Committee, a presbyter outside of the seven who 
were suspended cbarged that the one who presente d thoie 
resolutions acted in a very unwise manner in presenting them 
to be considered in connection with the report of the Judicial 
Committee. -'An unwise move has been m ide and ! ut lor 
these resolutions the difficulty would have been adjusted. ,r 
said one, 4 and we would have been on our way home and the 



368 



STENOGRAPHIC KEPOKT. 



whole matter settled.'' So some of those who were specially 
concerned as having given their assent to the basis presented 
by the Judicial Committee, felt that a wrong had been done ; 
but there were members in Presbytery who also at that time 
thought that the right move had not been made. You heard 
the statement here on this platform, of Dr. McAllister, to the 
effect that he at the time was surprised; he didn't think that 
it was the right or a wise thing to do ; but afterwards when 
he had talked it over with Dr. George, he saw it was the only 
consistent thing that he c©uld do. 

}fow I submit to you, Members of this Court, that if Dr. 
McAllister did not think it was the wise thing to do, and the 
Doctor, when the motion was presented, indicated that he 
thought it was not the place for it; if the speech made by Dr. 
George in connection with those resolutions did not convince 
him that it was the proper time and place for them, and he 
was not convinced of it, until after he had a talk with Dr. 
George, — how could we, placed in the situation in which we 
were, look upon that as other than a betrayal? 

Another remark, made by the prosecution, that I do not 
understand is this : That the young men were not required to 
give their assent to these resolutions. Xow I think I just 
made one speech at that meeting of Presbytery. And let me 
call your minds to this fact. That those resolutions were 
presented to be considered in connection with the basis re- 
ported about twenty minutes of twelve o'clock; when the 
noon hour came, there was an adjournment, I think, until 
maybe half past one or say two o'clock. The resolution and 
basis connected were still in connection. When Presbytery 
came together after dinner they were still in connection, and 
they hung together until after four o'clock in the afternoon. 
Somewhere along about three o'clock I rose and made 
remarks to this effect: That I had accepted that basis of 
settlement in good faith and come there to stand by it; I did 
not object to Presbytery taking any action that they might 
see fit with reference to the East End Meeting or the East 
End Platform, but do not couple that action with the basis of 
settlement presented by the Judicial Committee. Xow, Dr. 
George may have said that day that we were not required to 
give our assent to the resolutions that were presented. But I 
was there all day and I was trying to listen to what was going 
on, and my understanding was that the two were coupled to- 
gether; that if we adopted the basis of settlement, we took it 
with the resolution presented in connection therewith, and 
you will remember in my statement I made before you con- 
cerning the complaint in relation to the injustice that the 
Minute did me, I stated to this effect: "That I did not with- 
draw my assent from the basis of settlement presented; but if 
these resolutions were to be considered as riders thereto, I 
would not adhere to it. I had in my mind adhering to the 



MONDAY, JUNE 8. 



369 



basis if I could possibly do so without adhering" to those res- 
olutions. There was not a man in the Presbytery arose at 
that time and stated that I did not have to adhere to the res- 
olutions that were presented in connection with the basis of 
settlement. 

STow. just another remark in connection with the statement 
that has been made, that all the young men ref used to accept 
a letter of standing to other denominations that was proposed 
to be offered to them. I want to say right here, in the pres- 
ence of this Synod, that I never said a word with reference to 
that letter in any way, shape or form; and my recollection is, 
there was only one of the seven, or one of the five that were 
there, that said anything in regard to it. I know I didn't say 
anything, and I am prepared to produce witnesses to that 
effect. So there were some of the five who were there, my- 
self being one, who did not refuse to accept the letter that 
was presented, and I do not think there was any chance 
offered to us of making any refusal, for that was no sooner 
brought before the Court until Mr. Crozier and one or two 
others were on their feet opposing any such action by Pres- 
bytery • and the statement by one of the prosecutors, that such 
a motion could have been carried by Presbytery, is a statement 
that I would doubt. 

Another remark just in this connection with reference to 
the argument of the defence. You will notice this running 
through the defence almost from beginning to end, that there 
would be taken a statement of one, or a statement of two, say, 
and the statement would be charged to the whole six or 
seven. Kow, just take as an illustration of that the matter to 
which reference has been made in connection with the mis- 
understanding with reference to the report brought in by the 
Committee on Discipline. They suspected that that report 
had been changed. Now I never knew that there was any 
ground for such a suspicion until I heard Mr. Reed's speech 
here. I never looked over the transcript of the Minutes that 
was sent to me, or the transcript which I had hold of, and I 
never knew that in the Minutes there was any ground for any 
sueh suspicion. Yet it was intimated that Mr. Reed, in pre- 
senting that idea, was representing not himself only, but was 
representing all that were concerned. I submit, Fathers and 
Brethren of this Synod, that that is not a fair way of defend- 
ing Presbytery's action. It is not fair to take the statements 
that only one may have made, and charge them upon all. 

In arguing with reference to the admissibility and with 
reference to the relevancy of the libel, these facts were 
brought out : That the Presbytery was the party that made 
the charge; that the facts were known to the Court. The 
statement had been made in the presence of the Court, thatig 
very true. But what was the specification in the libel? What 
was the specification in the charge that was brought against 



370 



STENOGRAPHIC REPORT. 



us .of following divisive courses? The specification was not 
simply the East End Meeting; it was not simply the East 
End Platform. And I maintain that those things are not a 
part of the specifications in the libel, charging us with fol- 
lowing divisive courses. The specification in the libel is for 
having said, "That persons, who make a credible profession 
of the Lord Jesus Christ, should be received into church 
membership on their acceptance of our Testimony and Term* 
of Communion without binding them to our explanation in 
the matter of political dissent or in other questions/' There 
is the specification. Those defending Pittsburgh Presbytery's 
action did not take up that specification for consideration in 
any way, shape or form. True enough, the Court was a com- 
petent witness, and competent to bring charges. True en- 
ough, the facts were brought before the Court. But the thing 
for you to consider is not simply the character of the Presby- 
tery that made the charge, is not simply the statements that 
were before the Court, but it is the specification in the libel r 
the specification under the charge of following divisive 
courses. The specification I have quoted in your hearing. 
Was that specification admissible? Was that specification 
relevant to censure when, as we show in presenting our side 
of the case, it rested on God's Word and our Te timony? 

Now I want right in this connection to give my testimony 
with reference to my understanding of the East End Meeting. 
There was, as you have heard, a misunderstanding with ref- 
erence to the vote of the Meeting, and with reference to the 
Platform, among those who were connected, or who were at 
the Meeting. I stated in the hearing of Presbytery time and 
again, and gave as my reason for refusing to accept the basis 
that was offered me by Pittsburgh Presbytery, that I never 
thought that the East End Meeting effected an organization; 
I never thought I was a member of any such organization; 
and that I could not accept the basis that Pittsburgh Presby- 
tery offered, because of the clause that it put in, requiring a 
withdrawal from the organization formed at the East End. 
Those who were at Presbytery will remember that was the 
reason I gave why I could not accept of the basis that was 
offered. I never understood the East End Meeting as hav- 
ing the character of an organization or as effecting an organ- 
ization. 

Another thing, brought out by the defence, was this: That 
the East End Meeting, or the manner of the dissemination of 
the East End Platform, and the matter it contained, was in 
character anarchistic. You will remember that reference was 
made to that copperhead Vallandingham who lived in the 
State of Ohio, I believe it was, at the time of the Civil War r 
one who sympathized with the rebels in the southern conflict, 
one whose sympathies were with those whose aim and pur- 
pose was the enslavement of the sons of man, one who in the 



MONDAY, JUNE 8. 



371 



north was doing all that it was possible for him to do to aid 
those who were fighting against the nation, fighting against 
the constitution. Now, Fathers and Brethren, I leave it to 
your honest judgment as to whether or not we were of such a 
character, — as to whether or not we ought to be placed beside 
such a man? 

Just another thought in the same connection. We were 
spoken of being. exactly like Dr. Briggs, and exactly like Mr. 
MacQeary in our own church. Now, I have not studied up 
the Brigg's case nor the MacQeary case, but I submit to you 
that Briggs and MacQeary before this Synod stand for all that 
is heretical. The attempt to place us by the side of such men 
as Briggs, MacQeary and Vallandingham is unjust and un- 
fair. It brings to my mind this thought : You remember that 
when the Jews crucified Christ they put him between two 
thieves, and it seems to me that when the defence tried to 
place us between such men as these, they are not following 
the spirit of Christ. 

Now, an act of Synod, I believe it was, which was passed 
in 1812, was referred to by one of those who defended 
Synod's action. And the act was to the effect that political 
dissent was the position of the Covenanter church at that 
time, and that it was rightly made a term of communion. I 
only make this reference from memory ; it is in the Minutes 
of the year 1812 that the act to which T refer, as 1 recollect, 
may be found. Now remember that 1812 is just six years 
after 1806. The Synod of the Reformed Presbyterian church 
six years before that time 

Rev. J. S. T. MILLIGAN : I think this is new matter and 
ought not to be brought before the Court. 

Rey. Mr. SAMSON : I will just add this thought: This is 
just brought in rebuttal of the reference that was made by 
Dr. McAllister; I want to show that his interpretation of that 
act is wrong by reading from the Testimony. 

The MODERATOR : Dr. McAllister brought in the decision 
of 1812, and the speaker is referring to the Doctor's interpre- 
tation of that act. He is in order. 

Rev. Mr. SAMSON : My purpose is to reply to the inter- 
pretation that was put on the act of Synod of 1812 by reading 
from the decision of the church itself. Remember that the 
act referred to in 1812 was an act to substantiate the fact that 
practical political dissent was a term of communion in the 
Covenanter church. That, remember, was simply an act of 
Synod. This is the Testimony of the church, its constitu- 
tional law, adopted in 1806, six years before the act of Synod 
to which reference was made. Now we will read from the 
Testimony: "The plan upen which the Reformed Presbytery 
propose to exhibit their principles to the world, embraces 
three parts. The first is Historical; the second, Declaratory ; 
and the third, Argumentative. The Historical part exhibits 



172 



STENOGRAPHIC REPORT. 



the church as a visible society in covenant with God. in the 
different periods of time : and points out precisely the situa- 
tion which they themselves occupy as a distinct* part of the 
Catholic church. The Declaratory part exhibits the truths 
which they embrace as a church, and the errors which they 
reject. The Argumentative part consists in a full investiga- 
tion of the various ecclesiastical systems which are known in 
the United States.'" Now here is the Declaratory part de- 
fined more fully: "The Declaratory part is the church's 
Standing Testimony. It contains principles capable of uni- 
versal application. To these principles, founded upon the 
Scriptures, simply stated, and invariably the same in every 
part of the world, every adult church member is to give his 
unequivocal assent.'' To the principles in the Declarative 
Testimony every adult member is to give assent. 

Here is what is said with reference'to the Historical part: 
••The Historical part is a help to understand the principles of 
the Testimony. It is partly founded upon human records, 
and therefore not an article of faith: but it should be care- 
fully perused, as an illustration of divine truth, and instruc- 
tive to the church. It is a helper of the faith." 

Xow here is the Argumentative part, and notice, it is in 
this part of the Testimony we find the application of the 
principle of political dissent to the existing system of govern- 
ment in the country: ■•The Argumentative part is the partic- 
ular application of the principles of the Testimony. It speci- 
fies the people who maintain errors: and it exposes the errors 
which they maintain. The confidence which persons may 
place in this part of the system, will partly rest upon human 
testimony, unless every one who reads it shall also have read 
and known every work to which it refers. It is not. therefore, 
recommended as an article of faith: but as a means of in- 
struction in opposing error, and gaining over others to the 
knowledge of the truth. Every human help which can be 
obtained" is to be used in subserviency to the interests of 
religion. But Divine truth is alone the foundaiion of our 
hope. Authentic history and sound argument are always to 
be highly valued, -and have always been beneficial to the 
church : but they should not be incorporated with the con- 
fession of our church's faith. The Argumentative part is a 
work of much care, and labor, and time. The Presbytery 
have not proposed to complete it at present." 

Xow. there is the constitutional law of the church, adopted 
in 1806. just six years before the act of Synod to which refer- 
ence was made. It says you shall not make acts of Synod or 
the argumentative part of the Testimony an article of faith. 
Are we to interpret the constitution by acts of Synod? Are we 
to interpret the constitution of this land by the laws the legis- 
lature of the country may pass, or the laws that the legis- 
lature may pass by the constitution under which they are 



MONDAY, JUNE 8. 



373 



passed? Here is an act of Synod, my Friends, and you must 
interpret it by the constitution adopted in 1806, which says 
you shall not make the argumentative part an article of faith. 

One reference was made to us, in that while we followed 
one of those representing Presbytery a while, we are not fol- 
lowing him at the present time, and that if we, as young men, 
would give as much study to the principles of the church and 
the church's legislation, as he has done, and devote twenty- 
five or fifty years of our time in studying into these things, we 
might occupy the same position that he does. Now, it is a 
strange fact that Doctors of Divinity have never been the 
leaders along new lines of thought. It has always been, al- 
most without exception, young men who have travelled along 
new lines of thought. If we follow what you term a new line 
of thought, different from that which those older than we have 
followed, may be we have not gone so far astray. We were 
chided because we were young men. I do not want to appear 
unseemly before you, but Paul told Timothy not to let them 
despise his youth. Christ himself was only thirty-three years 
of age when he died. He did not select among all the twelve 
apostles an old man. And I have read somewhere a state- 
ment to this effect, that in all the great movements of history 
you will find a young man or young men leading, and young 
men following. Xow, if we were to have followed the Doc- 
tor, who rather spoke in a railing manner, I think I can safely 
say to the members of this Synod that we would have had to 
jump back and forth a great many times in the last year with 
reference to some of the prominent questions that are before 
the public. 

Dr. MCALLISTER : Give some of them. 

Rev. Mr. SAMS OX : Another thought 

Dr. MCALLISTER: Oh, no; go on and give them; be 
specific. 

Rev. Mr. SAMSON : I do not understand you. The thought 
that was in my mind was the Doctor's explanation with ref- 
rence to the position on church union. I heard him in this 
place about eight years ago, I think it was, state that he is 
willing to go 

Rev. D. S. PARIS : I do not believe we will allow that even 
to gratify Dr. McAllister. 

The MODERATOR : That is hardly in order. 

Rev. Mr. SAMSOX : We have taken up more of your time 
than we thought we would. But in closing I want to ask the 
privilege of the Court to present to-morrow morning some 
evidence to offset the reference that was made to me the other 
day. And in closing for this evening I will simply speak 
these words : I want you as members of the Reformed Pres- 
byterian church, as you shall come to a decision of these 
-cases, to remember the points we made to you in our appeals, 
and then see how little these points were really touched upon 



374 



STENOGRAPHIC REPORT. 



in the defence that was made by the representatives of Pitts- 
burgh Presbytery. And I want to speak a word before I close 
with reference to a prejudgment of the case that was spoken 
of by those who defended Pittsburgh Presbytery's action. 
Why, certainly the members of Pittsburgh Presbytery pre- 
judged the case when they had the evidence before them be- 
fore the case was tried. Well, without doubt the members of 
Pittsburgh Presbytery, after we made our statement, did form 
an opinion or have a judgment in their minds with reference 
to the case; but the prejudgment of the case to which refer- 
ence was made was the prejudgment that manifested itself be- 
fore ever Presbytery met. The memorials, the paper from the 
Elders' Convention, the papers that were presented there by 
members of the Court, all these papers go to show that there 
was prejudgment of the case, and that prejudgment was not 
referred to. Therefore, possibly, we are out of order in this 
matter. 

But in closing I think if you will analyze the case particu- 
larly, members of the Synod of the Reformed Presbyterian 
church, you will see that the whole thing started in the belief 
and confidence that was had by members of the Pittsburgh 
Presbytery in unauthenticated newspaper reports ; that had 
the report that appeared in the Commercial Gazette been 
verified or been proven not to be true by personal consulta- 
tion with us by those who were Presbyters, the case would 
never have started. 

Fathers, another thought. 8 It was stated that the unrest in 
the minds of Pittsburgh Presbytery after the basis presented 
by the Judicial Committee was assented to by the seven young 
men rested on a report that appeared in the Commercial Ga- 
zette. Are we to be condemned by the Synod, because the 
case started from an unauthenticated newspaper report? Or 
because there w T as a failure to effect a settlement on account of 
the fact, that newspaper reports were allowed to affect the 
minds, and to shake the faith and confidence that some had 
in that basis, and some had in the ones that accepted, it? If 
you are to allow these things to weigh here, most assuredly 
Presbytery's action is to be sustained; but if you remember 
that newspaper reports in this country are not evidence in any 
court, I think you will clear us of the charge of following 
divisive courses, or that you will reverse the action of Pitts- 
burgh Presbytery in the findings and also in the sentence that 
was passed upon us. 

One other remark I must make before I close. Reference 
was made to the interpretation that was placed upon Mat- 
thew's Gospel the 18th chapter. It was claimed that Presby- 
tery had fulfilled that teaching of Christ to the very letter — 
'•if they will not hear the church let them be unto you as a 
heathen man and a publican." The representative of Pitts- 
burgh Presbytery said they did not hear the church; there- 



MONDAY, JUNE S. 



375 



fore they made us. not heathen and publicans, but as those 
who were heathens and publicans, those who were cut off 
from church privileges. I submit that when the gentleman 
put that interpretation upon the Scripture he gave Pittsburgh 
Presbytery entirely too much authority. There is fi higher 
court in the Eeformed Presbyterian church, and when we 
thought we were wronged in the Pittsburgh Presbytery, to a 
higher court we took our appeal. We did not refuse to 
hearken to the church, but when one court had done us wrong 
we appealed to the court that was higher than that, and we 
are here before you to-day as those who are hearkening unto 
those in authority, hearkening unto the highest court that 
there is in the Eeformed Presbyterian church. And I say not 
until we refuse to obey the decision of this Court can it be 
said of us that we should be as those that are heathen, and as 
those that are publican: and when Presbytery proceeded to 
pass sentence upon us. because we would not abide by their 
decisions, and when the representative of Presbytery used the 
Scripture to justify them in proceeding, he arrogated to Pitts- 
burgh Presbytery that power and authority which only the 
Synod of the Eeformed Presbyterian church holds, which only 
you. dear Fathers and Brethren, have. 

You will remember the other day reference was made to 
me bv evidence adduced by the defence. I desire to-morrow 
morning to adduce evidence in rebuttal in connection with 
that matter, and to show that I did not misrepresent anyone, 
and that I had not done that which was charged. 

(On motion the Court adjourned untill to-morrow morning 
at nine o'clock.) 

MOEXFXG SESSIOX. 

Tuesday, June 9, 1891. 

The MODERATOE: ^Ye are now ready to enter upon the 
consideration of the matter before us on last evening. Mr. 
Samson. I believe, claims the floor for the purpose of intro- 
ducing some evidence. 

Eev. W. L. C. SAMSOX : Fathers and Brethren: You will 
remember that there was introduced by those defending Pitts- 
burgh Presbytery, evidence, the purport of which was to show 
that in a statement I had made before Presbytery, in reference 
to certain acts of my own, that I had misrepresented. Xow I 
wish to show to you all, evidence that in the statement I made 
before Pittsburgh Presbytery, at a certain time and certain 
place, I did not misrepresent anybody or anything. I hold in 
my hand a certified copy of the full Minutes, a part of which 
was read in your hearing the other day. by one that was called 
upon to give evidence. The Minute is of a joint meeting of 
the elders and deacons of the McKeesport congregation, and 
was held in the church at McKeesport on December loth, 



STENOGRAPHIC REPORT. 



Monday evening. Now, remember that we were suspended 
by Pittsburgh Presbytery on December 11th. 

That meeting was called to order, and the first motion that ' 
came before it, was the one I shall read to you now: ';.M iss 
McConnell moved th#t the pulpit be supplied every Sabbath 
until April.'* That motion was made at that meeting. Now, if 
the pulpit was to be supplied every Sabbath until April, was the 
congregation going to pay the pastor's salary and pay for the 
supplies also? In this connection, I wish to ask a question of 
the one who made that motion, and who was here before you 
giving evidence : If she had not been informed by members of 
Pittsburgh Presbytery that the congregations would not be 
held responsible for the pastor's salar}- when they were sus- 
pended? 

Miss McCONNELL : Mr. Moderator, before answering that 
question, I would like to know who his informant is. Mr. 
Samson was not present at the officers' meeting. These re- 
marks do not appear upon the Minutes. I do not decline to 
answer. 

Dr. MCALLISTER : I think if we have anything on that 
point it ought to be brought out fully. One of the elders, Mr. 
S. O. Lowry, wrote to me immediately on that point. 

Rev. Mr. SAMSON : I will touch that letter. 

The MODERATOR : Will Miss McConnell make her state- 
ment so all can hear. She will please come forward. 

(Miss McConnell complied with the Moderator's request.) 

Miss McCONNELL : I said, that as Mr. Samson was not 
present at the officers' meeting I would like to know who his 
informant is that these remarks were made? He can decline 
to answ r er if he wishes. I intend to answer his question. 

Rev. Mr. SAMSON : He will tell who his informant was 
later on. 

Miss McCONNELL: I would state in reply that the re- 
marks did not come on the point of this motion. There was a 
subsequent motion made, and I would like Mr. Samson would 
read it. It was a motion in regard to the payment of the 
pastor's salary, and it was on that these remarks were made. 

Rev. Mr. SAMSON reads : "Miss McConnell moved that 
pulpit 

Miss McCONNELL : That is not the one. It is a motion 
Mr. Lowry made. 

Rev. Mr. SAMSON : That motion is not certified. 

Miss McCONNELL : Then I will state it. Mr. S. O. Lowry 
moved that we pay bur pastor's salary I stated in my re- 
marks, on that motion, which do not appear on the Minutes, 
that I had been informed by two members of Pittsburgh Pres- 
bytery that in their opinion we would not have to pay the 
pastor's salary, and I added, "It is my opinion we will not 
have to." The motion was voted down. It does not appear 
in the record, and we did not say we would not pay. No 



TUESDAY, JUNE 9. 



377 



action of that kind has ever been taken. That is when my 
remarks came in, — that it was the opinion of two members 
of Presbytery, it was not positively stated that we would not. 

Kev. Mr. SAMSON : That brings before this Court the 
point we want to get at, — that there were members in Pitts- 
burgh Presbytery who had advised members in McKeesport 
congregation that the congregation would not be responsible 
for the pastor's salary. Now, taking that advice in connection 
with the motion that we read in your hearing, that the pulpit 
be supplied until the spring meeting of Presbytery in April, 
it goes to show that the one who made the motion, it seems, 
had in mind the idea that the congregation would not have to 
pay the pastor's salary. It was brought out in your hearing- 
that there was a motion made at that meeting to this effect : 
"That the treasurer be instructed to pay the pastor's salary 
until the first of January," which motion was voted down. 
Now remember that this meeting took place on Monday after 
the Tuesday that I was suspended. The Sabbath after 1 was 
suspended I was at the McKeesport congregation. About the 
time I was suspended I had received an invitation from a 
United Presbyterian congregation. I had never heard of the 
congregation before I received the invitation and did not know 
anything about who the people were or where they lived, ex- 
cept that they were United Presbyterians. 

Rev. D. S. FARIS: I think he should say whether he is 
through with the witness. 

Miss McCONNELL : I do not think he is. He has not stated 
what was done with that motion in regard to filling the pi lpit 
until the first of April. 

Rev. Mr. SAMSON : It was withdrawn. And who raised 
the objection? 

Miss McCONNELL: Sir? 

Rev. Mr. SAMSON : Who made the objection? 
Miss McCONNELL : I made it. It does not appear on the 
record. 

Rev. Mr. SAMSON : What kind of Presbyterian law and 
order is this? I think this an informal meeting the whole 
way through, and as far as the statements go they are as good 
as those down on paper. Now, the point I was speaking of 
was this : This has to do with another statement that wa& 
made by the witness that I had preached in December, and 
had received salary, lam through with the witness for the 
present, and I think entirely. 

Now, the fact that I received the invitation, and the fact that 
it was brought to me that the probability was that the con- 
gregation would not pay my salary, indicated to me that if I 
was to have support the thing for me to do was to get all the 
work I could. The letter to which Dr. McAllister has made 
reference, was written after this meeting; was written by one 
who was present there, Mr. S. O. Lowrie, and written by him 



378 



STENOGRAPHIC REPORT. 



to get Dr. McAllister's opinion on the question that was 
brought before that meeting. Xow it seemed to me when the 
statement was made that I had preached, and I had received 
money for preaching, that the idea was in making that state- 
ment that I was at the same time collecting salary or money 
from two different places. 

It might be pertinent to ask how it was that the one who 
made that statement knew I received money for preaching. I 
did not tell her. I suppose she heard it from some one else 
who told her. But I think I can suggest to you a way, how 
she knew I received money for that preaching. When I was 
paid my January salary, which was not until after the meeting 
of Presbytery in January, (I do not think I received the 
January pay until nearly the first of February,) I gave back to 
the treasurer of McKeesport congregation a check for thirty 
dollars, which was the net money that I had earned from the 
time I was suspended until the close of January. I preached 
four Sabbaths at twelve dollars a day: my expenses going 
and returning from the place of preaching were over four 
dollars, and it left me something like a little less than eight 
dollars; seven dollars and seventy eight cents net for four 
days preaching; and I gave the treasurer of the McKeesport 
congregation a check for thirty dollars. 

Now, if I did receive money for preaching in other congre- 
gations when the McKeesport congregation paid me for the 
month of January, I refunded to that congregation whatever 
I earned by outside work. This was brought out you will re- 
member by the defence in connection with the argument on a 
point with reference to the sentence that was passed, and it 
seemed to me that it was all to discredit the statement I had 
made in purging myself of contempt of the court. When 
Presbytery met there was a motion, I do not remember just 
what the motion was. but it was that if those who had been 
suspended had obeyed their suspensions, they would be offered 
-a certain basis of settlement. When it came to me to state 
whether or not I had observed the suspension that was passed 
upon me. I arose and told the Presbytery just what I had 
done, that I had preached for the United Presbyterians, and I 
made a full statement with reference to what I had done there 
in the presence of the court. Now, did the court regard that 
.as insubordination at that time, and pass a resolution censur- 
ing me? Njo. Some of the members of the court arose and 
praised me for the frankness of the statement that I made in 
telling what I had done. Others thought that that was all- 
right; and it was the suggestion of some one, I do not just 
remember who, that it would be a good idea, for the pastors 
of congregations to go into other congregations to preach, and 
refund the money to the congregation when they should pay 
their salary. 

When I made that statement before Presbytery I did not 



TUESDAY, JUNE 9. 



379 



know but what that Presbytery might right then and there 
turn around, and institute a process against me for having 
done what I did; but I told the court all that I had done, and 
the fact was brought before the court that I had preached in 
another denomination, and no resolution of censure was 
passed, no resolution of admonition was passed, and the fact 
that I had preached for United Presbyterian congregations 
was before the Pittsburgh Presbytery from the middle of 
January until the time that this Synod was called. And yet 
these men want us to purge ourselves of the contempt of 
Pittsburgh - Presbytery ! I thought that if the Pittsburgh 
Presbytery had the fact before them that I preached and did 
nothing in my case, that the Presbytery itself did not regard 
it as contempt of their authority. 

Now, in regard to the statement I made to the Presbytery 
that the congregation had not paid me. You can see from the 
evidence I adduced that I did not misrepresent, for the pas- 
tor's salary was due on the first of January, and it was not 
paid until after the meeting of Presbytery, and Presbytery did 
not order the congregation to pay the pastor's salary. As to 
the other remark that was made, that we had preached in 
United Presbyterian congregations and received money there- 
for, while other facts were left out of consideration, that 
might go to show that we were working a kind of bunco 
game to collect salary from two places at the same time, the 
facts that I adduced to you show that the money I got from 
other places I refunded to the congregatijn; and if there is 
anyone who wants to have the evidence of witnesses outside 
of the evidence that has been brought before the court, 
there are witnesses here to make statements on those ques- 
tions. The members of Pittsburgh Presbytery had advised 
the officers of the McKeesport congregation that they would 
not be held responsible for the pastor's salary, and the action 
taken four days after I was suspended indicated that they were 
acting under advice from members of Pittsburg Presbytery. 
Now the letter that was referred to was written after that 
meeting to Dr. McAllister. 

Dr. McALLISTER : Have you my letter in reply? 

Rev. Mr. SAMSON : I call on Mr. Lowrie if he is present. 

Dr. McALL.STER: I would call for the reading of that 
letter. 

(Mr. Lowrie was not present.) 

Rev. Mr. SAMSON : I thank the court for the attention you 
have given me. I have taken up much of vour time, more 
than 1 ought to have done, and for your kindness to me in 
hearing my appeal and complaint I thank you, as well as for 
your kindness in hearing my reply. I thank you and pray 
that God's spirit may be with you, giving you guidance and 
direction in such manner that the cause of the Lord Jesus 
Christ may be honored, and that his kingdom may be spread 



380 



STENOGRAPHIC REPORT. 



abroad throughout the world. I leave the case in your hands. 

Miss McCONNELL : I would like Mr. Samson to make the 
exact statement, as near as he can, that he made when he was 
asked if he kept the suspension act. I would like him to re- 
call the words if possible. 

Rev. J. S. T. MILLIGAN : I object to this, Mr. Moderator. 

Rev. Mr. SAMSON : I would like to make the statement. 

Rev. J. R. THOMPSON : We have no right to bring in new 
testimony; no party has a right to bring up a new witness. 

Dr. MCALLISTER: It is too late for the brother to make 
that objection. 

Rev. J. R. THOMPSON : I know; I tried to raise it before. 

The MODERATOR: The point however is simply this: 
When a person is making his speech and calls upon some one 
who is better informed about the point that he makes than he 
himself is, it does not seem proper to refuse to allow him to 
ask that person to make a statement. 

Rov. J. R. THOMPSON : But here is one witness question- 
ing the appellant. 

The MODERATOR : It is proper to ask Mr. Samson any 
question when the hour comes for asking questions that bear 
on his case ; and if this has a direct bearing on the point upon 
which he is speaking the question will be in order. 

A MEMBER : Has a witness the right to come to this court 
and question parties? 

The MODERATOR : If Mr. Samson is not through he will 
proceed. 

Rev. Mr. SAMSON : I was through until that statement was 
called for. 

The MODERATOR : Mr. Samson attempted and did speak 
on the very point that Miss McConnell is asking him to give 
an accurate statement about. He has already spoken on that. 

Mr. D. TORRENS: I was only going to refer to a point of 
order, that if there is any fact that Miss McOonnell wishes to 
elicit it can be done through the other side. I think it is 
utterly disorderly to have this pro and con talking this way ; 
it confuses members of the court, and we want to hear the re- 
joinder on the other side, andthej^ can bring in anything that 
Miss McConnell wishes to have brought in. 

Rev. Mr. SAMSON : I would just like to make that state- 
ment. 

The MODERATOR : You may, if it is in order. 

Rev. Mr. SAMSON : The statement I made in Presbytery 
that was referred to as near as I can remember was this: When 
I was called up to state whether or not I had observed the 
sentence of suspension I arose and stated the facts with refer- 
ence to preaching as near as I could. Now, I do not know as 
I could recall the language, but I stated as near as I can 
remember that members of the McKeesport congregation had 
been informed by members of Presbytery that the congrega- 



TUESDAY, JUNE 9. 



381 



tion would not be held responsible for the pastor's salary: 
that I had not received any salary from the McKeesport con- 
gregation and had been refused salary when it was due from 
the first of the month of January, when it always had been paid 
before that time. And the thought that was in my mind in 
making the statement was this : That if members of Presby- 
tery had advised the congregation that they were not respons- 
ible for the pastor's salary, and now Presbytery was going to 
refuse her permission to accept the basis offered, because I 
had preached in another place in order that I might earn 
a living, it had this appearance to me, and I made the state- 
ment to which reference was made, — that they were cutting 
off our base of supplies in the congregation, and they were 
refusing us permission to preach in other denominntions ; and 
I used the expression that they were going to starve us into 
submission as the government about that time were doing 
with the Sioux Indians. 1 may not have been as courteous as 
I ought to have been; but you can see the circumstances 
about the statement, a member advising the congregations 
that they need not pay the pastor's salary, and I did not 
know but what they would refuse us permission to accept this 
basis because we had preached in other denominations, and 
censure us for having done that. So you can see in those cir- 
cumstances the idea that was in my mind in the statement that 
was made. 

The MODERATOR: The next speaker is Mr. O. B. Milli- 
gan. 

Rev. O. B. MILLIGAiST: Fathers and Brethren, I had de- 
termined yesterday afternoon that I would not say anything. 
I saw the feeling of fatigue manifested in the faces of mem- 
bers, as well as the movements of members, and came to the 
conclusion that the members of this court were in like con- 
dition with myself, that my feelings were the feelings of all 
who are sitting upon this case, viz., that we were sick and 
tired of it; I confess that I am, and I have no doubt at all that 
the greater portion of this court have heared all they want 
on the subject. And I would not say anything this morning 
if it were not for the fact that in two instances at least it has 
been insinuated that I had spoken things that I ought not to 
have spoken and that reflected upon some members of this 
court and others of our church who are not at this time mem- 
bers of this court, and also certain things that reflected upon 
myself; and my purpose in coming before you this morning 
is identical with the purpose with which I came before you 
the first day, viz., I mean to defend myself. 

The first thing that was insinuated against me was that I 
called down reproach upon the elders of the Pittsburgh Pres- 
bytery. 

Mr. WALTER T. MILLER: I wish to raise a point of or- 
der. Is an insinuation a thing to reply to? Now I wish to 



382 



STENOGRAPHIC REPORT. 



say in support of my point of order this: That the members 
of the court are tired of the indulgence of the Moderator, and 
they will not submit to any more nonsense in the conduct of 
this case. They are determined that the regulations shall be 
maintained exactly, and we are tired of long speeches over 
ground that we have gone over forty times, and claims that 
are not germane to this case. That is what we intend to main- 
tain now, and we trust the Moderator will hold every one 
down to that requirement. 

Rev. O. B. MILLIGAN: Isn't it fair that I shall have a 
right to defend myself? 

Mr. WALTER T. MILLER; It is not the place for a de- 
fence; I submit; it is by the record we must go. 

Rev. O. B. MILLIGAjST: I hold this point; If this is not the 
place for a defence then it was no place for the insinuation. 

The MODERATOR: The Moderator is placed in a very 
peculiar position as can be seen; and the criticisms that have 
been made on the Moderator render it all the more difficult. 
The Moderator knows he has been indulgent, but at the same 
time it h?.s been thought best to allow a considerable amount 
of latitude consequent upon the peculiar situation in which we 
are placed. The speakers of yesterday while they traveled 
over a great deal of ground were at least in form replying to 
what had been said on the other side, and the book declares 
that in the rejoinders they shall confine themselves to what has 
been said on the other side. It is true they traveled over the 
same ground again and again. It has become a beaten path. 
We are all familiar with it. But the Moderator does not see 
that it is in his power to call a speaker to order when he is 
replying directly to what has been said on the other side. The 
speaker will proceed. 

Rev. O. B. MILLIGAN : I submit to this Court that in my 
first address speaking with reference to the Elders' Conven- 
tion that I used this expression : That the man who drafted 
or framed the call for the Elders' Convention misrepresented 
us before the church 

The MODERATOR : We cannot permit that kind of talk. 

Rev. O. B. MILLIGAN: Now, Mr. Moderator, the fact is 
this; that expression had been magnified or added to until I 
have been represented before this court as having said this 
with reference to all who indorsed the call for the Elders' 
Convention. To this I have only a word to say : there are 
mentioned there names on that call for that Elders' Conven- 
tion of men in the Reformed Presbyterian chureh for whom I 
have the greatest respect. I do not believe that any man in 
this court has any more respect for marry of the men whose 
names are on that call than I have. I cannot forget the fact 
that one at least who is now very near the other world was 
one before whom I appeared when I was received into the 
Reformed Presbyterian church. Arid I know there are faces 



TUESDAY, JUNE 9. 



383 



in this house to-day looking upon me whose minds will not 
or dare not accuse me of speaking or thinking against that 
saint of God. I have been with him in this his last sickness, 
as I believed, and when I was talking with him in his own 
home he requested me to go with him to the throne of grace, 
and there I went in earnest hrmble supplication that the God 
of Israel who had been with him all these years, even to old 
age and grav hairs, would not leave him now. 

The MODERATOR : The speaker will please confine him- 
self to the question. 

Rev. O. B. MILLIGAX : I just want to say, Mr, Moderator, 
to the members of this court that I have respect for men who 
are represented on the call to that Elders' Convention, and I 
love them and reference them as much as any man in this 
court of the Reformed Presbyterian church. The first de- 
fendant in speaking about the matter of organization and 
what I had said concerning this memorial, or the memorial of 
his session, to the Pittsburh Presbytery, tried to justify his 
course on the ground that from newspaper reports he had 
come to the belief that there was really an organization, and 
on that ground he had prepared a memorial, or his session 
had prepared a memorial, and sent it up to Presbytery, in 
which he charges us with having formed an organization. 
Xow I want to submit this question : Is it fair, is it manly, is 
it Christian 

The MODERATOR : Please confine yourself to the ques- 
tion. 

Rev. 0. B. MILLIGAX : I am going to confine myself to it. 
For any court to frame a memorial against any man on the 
ground of a simple belief— I claim, members of this court, 
that the fact must be proved beyond a preadventure, that the 
charge against such and such a person can be proved or is 
proven before such memorial can be framed or sent to the 
higher court. It is not right for any man believing some- 
thing against another to memorialize him before the Chris- 
tian church as being guilty of that, until he has grounds, and 
grounds by which he can prove or sustantiate that that belief 
is true. 

But he says afterwards he did not think we had an organ- 
ization, when we came to accept the basis of settlement that 
was prepared for us by the Judicial Committee; that after- 
ward he had come to a certain conclusion when we made out 
statements, or certain of us made statements, before the Pitts- 
burgh Presbytery that an organization had been formed. 

Xow bear in mind, members of this court, that that memo- 
rial had gone up to that court, and in that memorial there was 
reference made to something with respect to which he had not 
that certain conviction that a man in doing that which will 
have a tendency to bring the reproach upon the character of 
a brother minister ought to have. 



384 



STENOGRAPHIC REPORT. 



With reference to this basis of settlement, in order to justify 
his course in presenting that series of resolutions during the 
first meeting of Presbytery he said he was acting the part of 
mediator: that after the report had been circulated by some 
one through the newspapers with reference to that basis of 
settlement that had been agreed upon in the Central Alle- 
gheny church, there were members of this court who said to 
him that they were going to see to it that the church did not 
come down from her position or something to that effect; and 
realizing that there was going to be something done in Pres- 
bytery that would interfere with the acceptance b}^ Presbytery 
of this basis of settlement he introduced these resolutions, if 
possible to shield us ? if possible to secure for us from that 
Presbytery an acceptance of that basis. 

Now, Mr. Moderator and Brethren of this court, if that man 
knowing the agreement we had reached in that committee- 
room and realiziag that we were in that frame of mind when 
we would naturally suspect most anybody, especially those in 
that court, if they were to do anything that would have a 
tendency to destroy our acceptance, or take away our accept- 
ance of that basis of settlement, wasn't it the part of that man 
to come to us and warn us that he was going to present those 
resolutions? 

The fact is this : I went out to Wilkinsburg from East Lib- 
erty on the train with Dr. George. I spoke to him on that 
train, and never once did he intimate to me that he was going 
to present these resolutions. And now realizing that we were 
bound together by a covenant bond in the Central Reformed 
Presbyterian church in Allegheny, and realizing that we were 
holding to that bond, wasn't it his part to come to us and say, 
''There is a movement against accepting this basis of settle- 
ment and I want you to accept these resolutions or at least to 
hold your peace with regard to them; for I realize that it is 
only by means of these resolutions that we will be able to 
effect this settlemeut on the ground of this basis?'" But he did 
not. Rather than do that he rose in the court and sprung 
these resolutions upon us. 

Now, Brethren, bear this also in mind : When these reso- 
lutions wer« presented to that court every one of the live of 
us were bound by that basis of settlement to hold our peace 
and say nothing with reference to the East End Platform. I 
ask, is it fair for this court, or was it fair for the Pittsburgh 
Presbytery, to expect us to hold to that basis when the basis 
itself had been violated by one who was instrumental in the 
framing of it? And it was on that ground that I withdrew my 
acceptance from that basis of settlement. 

Again it has been remarked with reference to that expres- 
sion which I used that it sounded very much like blasphemy. 
Brethren, I do not ask that brother to make apologies to this 
court for me with reference to that expression. That expres- 



TUESDAY, JUNE 9. 



385 



sion. if it was blasphemy, will be charged against me at the 
great white throne. If I intended to do dishonor to the Lord 
Jesus Christ, He will hold me responsible. And with reference 
to that expression permit me to say now that if I were to be 
called this moment to meet my Judge I would have no fear 
with regard to the motive and' purpose which I had in using it. 

But I do believe. Brethren, and 1 cannot but say now that 
the brother has hot driven that belief from my mind, I do 
believe that in this matter he has acted the part of a dual, per- 
sonality. I cannot banish that thought from my miud. It is 
there and it is not there through any fault of mine, it is there 
by his own fault. 

And now I am going to conclude with just a word with 
respect to the sentence. The second defendant said we had 
no ground of appeal from the suspension. First, he proved 
this from the 18th chapter of Matthew and 15th verse. He says 
that the Presbytery took us and plead with us as it became 
brethren in Christ to plead one with the other. Well. Mr. 
Moderator and members of this court, how did Presbytery do 
this'? They began with memorials. They followed these me- 
morials with a form of libel prepared against two of the 
seven. The committee on discipline followed up that form of 
libel with what has been presented to you, and i need not go 
over it. Then we came to the ba>is of settlement that was 
brought before the court, and the court speaking the words of 
my brother would not accept it unless there w^as something 
done to cleft nd the church. So the Presbytery has gone on. 
pleading with us. 

I submit to the members of this court, is that the way breth- 
ren pie id one with the other? If that is the idea of what is 
becoming to brethren in Christ then I confess I am thankful 
that thatidea does not run in my mind. Oh, had you come to 
me as a brother and talked to me with reference to that East 
End Meeting — ay, and had you come to the door and knocked 
you would have found there was no secret meeting going on 
within: and had you admonished me or remonstrated with 
me with regard to that, and had you shown me that what I did 
was wrongCl would as a Christian dare to repent before the 
eyes of the world. That was not done. That is the way the 
Pittsburgh Presbytery fulfilled that command of the Lord 
Jesus Christ. I submit to the members of this court that that 
is not the way the Lord Jesus Christ meant that this court or 
the Pittsburgh Presbytery should deal with us under such 
circumstances. • 

Now, some quotation was made with reference to this sus- 
pension from the United Presbyterian Book of Discipline and 
Government. I have simply a practical illustration to set be- 
fore you in opposition to that. A certain member of the Mo- 
nongahela Presbyteiy of the United Presbyterian church not 
.a great while ago violated a certain law of the United Presby- 



386 



STENOGRAPHIC REPORT. 



terian church. I need »ot and will mention names. The cir- 
cumstance is well known to those who live in the bounds of 
Pittsburgh Presbytery. That man appeared before the Mo- 
nongahela Presbytery and the Monongahela Presbytery found, 
him guilty of violating a law of the church. What did he do? 
He presented an appeal to the superior judicatory. What did 
that appeal do? Did it take him from the pulpit? Did it 
take him from the pew, from the rights and privileges of all 
members of the United Presbyterian church? No, Mr. Mod- 
erator and Members of this Court, that man preached in the 
United Presbyterian church; that man communed in the 
United Presbyterian church; that man has enjoyed all the 
rights and privileges of a member of the United Presbyterian 
church, and he would enjoy them to-day if it had not been 
that he has withdrawn from the United Presbyterian church, 
received papers and gone into the Presbyterian body. True, 
the Assembly of the United Presbyterian church has given 
evidence that it would have endorsed or ratified the verdict 
of the Monongahela Presbytery ; but until the assembly met,, 
and up until the assembly had issued that case, that man en- 
joyed all the privileges of the United Presbyterian church. 
Those who have drafted the law, and who are governed by it. 
sheuld know how to explain it. That is the interpretation 
the United Presbyterian church puts on her own law. I can- 
not see how it is that a member in our church should under- 
take to put another interpretation upon it. 

Mr. Moderator, with these remarks I submit my case to the 
decision of this Court. 

The MODEKATOE : The next speaker in order is Mr. J. K. 
J. Milligan. 

Eev. J. R. J. MILLIGAN: Fathers and Brethren, in my 
remarks the other day I called attention to this idea that we 
were not here to discuss the merits of this case, that is r 
whether we were guilty of following divisive courses; that 
We were here to see whether we have received justice at the 
hands of the Pittsburgh Presbytery. Yet the merits of the 
ease have been discussed; they have been discussed very 
fully; and the position of the Liberals has been very fully 
discussed. I want to say in regard to that that the position 
of the Liberals has been denned, and they have been repre- 
sented as believing and holding that, which I for one have 
never professed to hold or believe, and which I defy any man 
to find one word written by me to the effect of the ideas that 
have been presented on the floor of this house by the other 
side. 

In my trial I did not utter one single word in opposition to- 
our principles. My speech on the trial was printed and it 
has been read. If you go to the files of the paper in which 
that speech was printed I defy you to find one single word 
against the principles of our church. I did say very much 



TUESDAY. JUNE 9. 



against a certain present position of our church, which I hold 
to be inconsistent. I said very much about that, and because 
I did that it was said by some that I said harder things 
against the church than any of the others. But I want you 
to read that speech, and I want you to find one single word I 
said against the principles of our church. 

And now it becomes me, in order to defend that, to givem-y 
understanding of the second plank of the East End Platform. 
That is the plank which is specified in our libel. It is this ; 
••That persons ought to be admitted into the Reformed Pres- 
byterian church on their acceptance of our Testimony and 
Terms of Communion without binding them to our explana- 
tions in the matter of politicai dissent or in other questions."* 
I like the explanation Mr. Reed gave of that on yesterday. 
We have no objection to the position of political dissent. M 
is only to the explanations of that chapter of political dissent 
in our Testimony ; and the explanations of that chapter of 
political dissent since some years back have been to the effect 
that we can sit on juries, that we can vote on amendments. 
And thus there are men in our church, who as members might 
stay in the church but as officers who have to exercise disci- 
pline in the church cannot conscientiously put a man out of 
the church for incorporating by voting for an officer, when 
perhaps the elder himself, who is sitting there as a judge, has 
incorporated by voting for an amendment. 

Perhaps the defendants here who believe that position con- 
scientiously enforce discipline, but those who do not believe 
that position cannot conscientiously enforce that position. 
And there are members on this floor who if I would call upon 
them have run against that snag in enforcing < iscipline since 
the act of 1S89. "it is impossible for us to do it and do it con- 
scientiously. For my part I cannot put a man out of the 
church for voting for an officer on the ground of incorpora- 
tion when I believe he has incorporated in the same way by 
voting for an amendment. And that plank in our Platform 
may be just as conservative as you want it; and so it is con- 
servative. 

And then again, our position on political dissent. It means 
that when we explain the terms of communion at the Lord's 
table, or before going to the Lord's table, a person cannot go 
forward and take tokens of admission to the Lord's table on 
his explanation but on the terms of communion themselves : 
and we have said that we take the 30th chapter, which is the 
chapter on political dissent, all of it. every single word of it. 
But I do not propose that any person shall explain that chap- 
ter and tell me you can vote on amendments and not incor^ 
porate. and that I can go forward to the communion table on 
that basis: and that it is in that sense that the Covenant of 
1871 refers to incorporating by any act. It takes it all in. and 



388 



STENOGRAPHIC REPORT. 



there we stand on that very basis ; the most conservative that 
it is possible for this church to take." 

But here is another point. There are wide divergencies of 
views in regard to this matter. There are some who hold that 
you can vote on amendment and some that you cannot. Now 
you have heard here that when this Synod rescinds the act of 
1889, Mr. McAllister will withdraw from the church. 

Dr. McALLISTEK : I said nothing of the kind. I said this : 
If the Synod of the Reformed Presbyterian church would 
make it compulsory on me not to vote in case of a prohibition 
amendment, then I would have to withdraw from the church. 
The rescinding of the resolution of 1889 would not do that. 
It would leave it where it was when Father Sloane voted for an 
amendment, and when this brother (Rev. D, S. Faris), who is 
now opposed to it,, voted for the amendment to the constitu- 
tion of the State of Illinois. Father Sloane and this brother 
Voted before we passed that resolution. If that resolution 
were rescinded, I would still have a right to vote. 

A MEMBER : I call the gentleman to order. He is intro- 
ducing new testimony. 

The MODERATOR : He said this before. 

Dr. MCALLISTER : I did not enter into these particulars, 
but what I said before was that if the Synod made it com- 
pulsory upon me not to vote for amendments I would be con- 
strained to withdraw. 

Rev. J. R. J. MLLLIGAN: I have just to say that if the act 
of 1889 is rescinded the act of 1868 is then the position of our 
church which prohibits him from voting on amendments, 
and prohibits that brother (Rev. D. S. Faris) from doing it. 
And so I stand by the statement I made. There are men who, 
if this position be held to be the position of the church, can- 
not conscientiously support the position of the church, and 
they will have to withdraw. Now there are two parties hav- 
ing differing views on that chapter of political dissent. Some 
will have to withdraw if they stand one way ; some will have 
to withdraw if you go the other way. Now then, we are will- 
ing to take that chapter on political dissent as it stands. . If it 
is not explicit enough now, make it explicit and let it go 
down in overture, and let the church have her position and 
stand on it till the judgment day. Now, there is where we 
are. Who is going to get out? I have heard it circulated 
since I came here that all we want is to get a vindication, and 
then we are going to leave. Just give us a chance! Just give 
us a chance ! We want to stand on that Testimony, but I am 
not going to take Dr. McAllister's explanation of it nor Dr. 
Crozier's explanation. What we want is the church to have 
an explanation of her Testimony, and if our Testimony is not 
explicit enough now, let us make it so. But right here ; we 
have a particular explanation of that point that was brought 
up by the Doctor in regard to my inconsistency. 



TUESDAY, JUNE 9. 



389 



However. I will first explain another statement which is to 
the effect that one of the men who had not heard my state- 
ment at the first meeting of Presbytery voted against me 
without a single witness. I refer to an elder, from Beaver 
Falls. He says the reason that elder voted was because of 
some remark I made on trial that if a student in the Theo- 
logical Seminary I could not take my ordination vow. Here 
is the statement: ."I cannot conscientiously discipline a man 
for voting in one way and let his brother go free for voting 
another way." And then men say if I have changed and can- 
not maintain discipline. I ought to leave the church. Why. it 
is the Covenant of the church that has changed. When I 
took my ordination vows to maintain the purity of the church, 
it did not permit men to vote in any way for amendments or 
anything else. But let me tell you. if I were a student in the 
Seminary to-day I would not take ordination vows and 
promise to maintain discipline on what I considered an in- 
consistent basis. And neither I would. Who is responsible 
for this change in the church? Am I? 

That brings me now to the explanation of my inconsistent 
position. I - want to say that I did vote in 1SS9. and that it 
was inconsistent for our church, as I understand its position 
on political dissent, to allow members to vote on that amend- 
ment. I went home and I voted for that amendment. And 
do you know this : that although I voted for that amendment 
that did not convert me to the "idea that Synod's action was 
right. I adhere to that to-day. I believe it is inconsistent 
with the position of our church. But there are certain things 
which had weight in influencing my action. The position of 
the church taken in 1SS9 had weight. Her opinion of Dr. 
McAllister's opinion had weight." And then, above it all, 
there was the excitement in the case, and there were mothers 
in my congregation whose prayers and whose tears were 
mingled with my own on behalf of sons who were going 
down to drunkards' graves. And I went and voted for the 
amendment, and I know it was inconsistent with our position 
of political dissent, and there I stand to-day. And had I 
voted in this Synod for the rescinding in 1889, I would vote 
the same as I voted then, and if it is inconsistent you can have 
the benefit of it. 

I gome to my second point. I have railed up this matter in 
regard to our position of political dissent. I hope you under- 
stand that we are not opposed to our church's position of 
political dissent. We are opposed to some persons" explana- 
tion of it: and when explanations are going to crowd us out 
as men who exercise judgment, we are going to oppose men's 
explanations. 

Another thing has been brought in. I think it hadn't any 
place here to the extent it has had. and that is in regard to 
khia organization. For one reason I am very glad it has been 



#90 



STENOGRAPHIC REPORT. 



discussed so fully. I complain that we were convicted and 
suspended not on that for which we were tried. There is not 
a ! specification in the libel concerning an organization, and 
yet the speeches that have been made on this ttoor of Synod 
certainly have convinced you that we were convicted of fol- 
lowing a divisive course, and that we were suspended because 
of the belief that we were members of an organization. A 
great deal of this talk about an organization, Mri Temple's 
confession and Mr. Reed's, &c., took place at a meeting of 
Presbytery at which I was not present. I am not responsible 
for Mr. Temple's statement. I am not responsible for Mr. 
Reed's opinions. I am only responsible for my own, and 
When I am put on trial for being a member of an organiza- 
tion I am ready to stand trial for that; but when I am on trial 
for attending a meeting and adopting a platform, and circu- 
lating it without one single specification in regard to an or- 
ganization, I do not propose to be convicted for being a mem- 
ber of an organization. I want you to bear that in mind. 
And we can just say here, there are various views in regard 
to whether an organization was formed. There are various 
Views in regard to the Commission. I suppose if we had 
asked members of Pittsburgh Presbytery just before that Ju- 
dicial Committee met, we Would have had ideas like this: "It 
is a committee." "No, it is a commission." "No, it is a 
dOmmittee." But you would have had just as varying views 
in regard to that Commission as you have in regard to an or- 
ganization. And I say again, when I am put on trial for be- 
ing a member of an organization I am ready ; but I do not 
think I ought to be required to make my defence until I am 
put on trial for it. 

And this brings me to a point in regard to that affidavit. It 
has been stated here (suggested to a great extent) that I did 
not have any affidavit ; that I read a telegram stating there 
was no organization. I state again that I read that affidavit 
of Mr. Carson before the Pittsburgh Presbytery. Is Mr. Kil- 
patrick here? (Mr. Kilpatrick rose to his feet.) I would like 
to have you make a statement in regard to that affidavit. 

Rev. A. KILPATRICK : He read an affidavit; and read, he 
said, the name of the alderman before whom it was taken. 

Rev. J. R.J. MILLIGAN : Very well ; that is Mr. Kilpatrick's 
idea. He was one of the prosecutors. I have that affidavit in 
my pocket, and whenever it is necessary to prove that there 
Was no organization I am ready to use that affidavit to that 
effect. If the Court think it is necessary to this case, I will 
produce it; but I certainly think it is not because you will 
remember there is not a single specification about an organi- 
zation. It was very proper then for the Pittsburgh Presby- 
tery to take into consideration the report that there was an 
organization in order to begin a trial. Memorials were pre- 
sented. But when they presented their libel and arraigned 



TUESDAY, JU>~E 9. 



391 



us. and did not specify an organization in that libel. I submit 
the fact of there being an organization, or the fact that there 
was not an organization, has nothing to do with the decision. 
But I have this affidavit in my pocket, and I am ready to pro- 
duce it any time the Court; asks for it, 

Eev. D. S. FAELS : Let us hear it It was before the Pres- 
bvterv. was it not? 

'Eev. J. E, ,T. MILLIGAY: Yes. sir: it was read to the Pres- 
bytery. It was read, if I remember correctly, after my trial 
and after I was found o;uiltv of following a divisive course. 

Dr. McALLLSTEE : I think not: I think it was read by Mr. 
Milligan while on the floor. 

Mr. D. TOREEXS: It does seem to me that it has no place 
here. If it is a regular document that was before Presbytery, 
it ought to have come up with the record. 

Dr. GEOEGE : It was not Presbytery "s paper at all. 

Eev. J. E. J. MILLIGAY : I want it to be distinctly under- 
stood that it should not be read in this case because I was not 
tried on a question of organization. Prof. Willson brought 
that out in the trial. 

A MEMBEE : I want to know if those who prosecuted the 
case laid anv stress on the fact of there beino; an organization? 

Eev. A. KILPATE1CK: Yes. Prof. Willson brouo-ht it out. 

Dr. McALLLSTEE : And we hold to it. 

Eev. J. E. J. MILLIGAY: Yes. hold to it: It is not 
specified in the libel. Hold to it! "What were we tried for? 
I maintain we were not tried for anvthino- not specified in the 
libel. Hold to it.' 

Dr. McALLISTEB : Hold to the libel is what we will do. 

Eev. J. E. J. MIL LI GAY : I will hold to this. 

Mr. D. TOEEE>*S: I submit that this is new matter and 
ought not to be heard. 

Eev. J. E. J. MLLLIGAY: I submit to whatever the Court 
mav decide. 

The MODEEATOE: The speaker will proceed. 

Eev. J. E. J. MILL 1GAY : 1 on have heard about that or- 
ganization, and a good deal about its secrecy. You have 
heard that it had all the elements of secrecy. It was asserted 
here that we would not take a single step without consulta- 
tion with each other. I want to say this : That Dr. McAllis- 
ter and Mr. Temple entered into a more secret association 
than ever I was with Mr. Temple. Mr. Temple has his own 
course and he pursued it. I was tried alone ar d I have pur- 
sued my course, and I want to maintain that from the very 
first I did that, and I will prove it before I am through. 

And I wish to say this in regard to Dr. McClurkin, that I 
did not know that be was going to the United Presbyterian 
church until the evening before he took his certificate. He 
sent me a letter about other things and mentioned that merely 
as an incident. I did not know that he had a letter that he 



392 



STENOGRAPHIC REPORT. 



was going to make public until I saw it in the Commercial 
Gazette. I did not know that Mr. Temple was going to the 
United Presbyterian church until I saw the knowledge of the 
fact in the paper. That is how we were bound together and 
one could not act without consulting the others. 

Then again, I state I had done that from the very first. I 
think I can prove it by reading a letter which 1 received from 
Dr. E,. J. George when he was at ISTewburg immediately after 
the first meeting of Presbytery. He wrote to me at that time, 
and the letter shows that he did not think I was acting with 
the rest in secret consultation : "My very dear brother : I take 
time to write you because I failed to have opportunity at the 
close of Presbytery. I could hardly be satisfied to have Pres- 
bytery adjourn after hearing your statement of your position 
without having taken some action to remove from you every 
shadow of suspicion thrown on you by your connection with 
other men who have gone so much further than you have 
ever desired to go. But I do believe that all felt impressed 
by the open, earnest and brotherly tone of your address. For 
myself I want you to know and feel that my whole heart 
responded to your words, and I want to grasp your hand in 
unbroken friendship. I could not think that you would ap- 
prove of much that was said by the others, and was so glad 
that you had the' independence to dissent from some of their 
views. " 

Now I maintain the charge made that we had a secret or- 
ganization and that we would not do anything without con- 
sulting the others, all vanishes. And then these statements 
that others have made on the floor of this Court in the 
speeches that have been presented by the different parties, I 
did not know the line a single one of them was to follow; I 
never read one of their appeals until I saw them in the paper; 
I had my own course to pursue, and I pursued it to the end r 
and I am here yet following my own line of action. Dr. 
McAllister said, "Having all the elements of secrecy." I 
cannot understand it. But then Dr. George said, "That 
which in some sense was a secret meeting." First, it was 
held nearly a year ago. Second, it was discussed ever since. 
Third, who knows all about it? Well, I submit if that is any 
reason for it being a secret organization. And I want to- 
illustrate this. 

The Elders' Convention was held nearly a year ago. It has 
been discussed ever since. Who knows all about it? Who 
knows who framed its call? Who knows who inspired its 
conception? That meeting was held in my church. I never 
knew a thing about it until the Convention was all over. — not 
a single word about it. That meeting was held in my church 
without my knowledge and without my consent. 

And just here I wish to say a word about how r these breth- 
ren talked to us. Dr. McAllister said, and I am not misrepre- 



TUESDAY. JTTXE 9. 



393 



senting him. that he talked to these brethren as he had op- 
portunity or occasion. But he never found occasion to speak 
to me about it. I live in the same city with him. I am a 
member of the same board of missions, the Central Board of 
Missions, and we met every month together. Yet he never 
said a word to me about it. He takes up Matthew the 18th 
chapter, from the 15th verse, that. "If thy brother shall tress- 
pass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and 
him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy 
brother.*" He says it was a personal matter. Was he acting- 
as a member of a court of God's house? Suppose a report 
comes to my ears about my brother having transgressed. Am 
I bound to go to that brother or not? As a member of the 
Court that has jurisdiction over him I submit it is my busi- 
ness to go and talk with him. "If he hear thee, thou hast 
gained thy brother." He said we did not hear him. 

As quick as they met these memorials came in: then came 
the Committee on Discipline. The discipline began with the 
chairman of the Committee on Discipline. That is talking to 
your brother, is it not? Did we hear them? They asked us to 
pray, and we prayed with them. They asked us to make 
statements, so that by a candid, open expression of views we 
might be brought to see eye to eye. Did we make those state- 
ments? Yes. we did. They said. -We will appoint a Judicial 
Committee to settle the matter." Did we hear them? They 
made their basis of agreement and we accepted it word for 
word. Did we hear them? Oh. I think we heard them. 
When we made our statements they said it was unkind to say 
that they might be used as evidence against us : yet they used 
them. The understanding was that the basis of settlement 
settled the matter. There was nothing to be brought in be- 
hind it. Did they bring anything in behind it? They brought 
the resolutions behind it. that made two of the young men 
withdraw: and they put in two clauses that made me with- 
draw. Did we hear them? Did they treat us fairly ? I ask 
you to decide, did we hear them? -If he shall hear thee, 
thou hast gained thy brother." Who is to blame for us not 
being gained? 

I want to go further in regard to this matter about talking 
with people. Professor Willson listens to my preaching. He 
and I were down south at the time of that Elders' Conven- 
tion. Did he say anything about it? We ate together, we 
slept together, and travt lied together for a v eek : my elder 
told us on the floor of Presbytery that he asked Prof. Willson 
to speak to me about these matters before he went away, and 
he acknowledged he never did it. never said a word about it. 

Then about the Elders' Convention. I ate supper with my 
elder the night before I went away. He had already invited 
that Conventton to meet in my church. But he did' not tell 



394 



STENOGRAPHIC REPORT. 



me that night that he had done so. Who knows all about the 
Elders' Convention. It must be in some sense secret. 

Then there has been another matter brought before you, — 
the reasons for Presbytery's action, and I want you to notice 
this. The. first reason given is, because we organized a secret 
organization. Now, as I said before, I can understand how, 
if they heard the report that there was an organization, they 
might take some steps to bring us to an account, to an under- 
standing of this matter. I grant that. But the second reason 
is, the condition of the congregations. That was referred to 
in the meeting of Presbytery, and Dr. McAllister has referred 
to it, and to my congregation especially. 

I want you to understand that it is a very sad picture over 
there, and that I have heart-burnings in regard to that matter 
too, and I want to say this, that the picture he presented of that 
-congregation is the picture of it now, not before Presbytery's 
.action. Why, the night before Presbytery took action against 
me, my congregation, with other things which perhaps I 
ought not to mention, as it is a personal matter, passed a res- 
olution to extend the church and put an addition to it in order 
to enlarge our Sabbath school, and that subscriptions or col- 
lections might be taften through the congregation. We were 
in joy and in love. There was not a home in that congrega- 
tion into which I could not enter, and which I did not enter 
and perform pastoral duties. There was not a single ripple 
on account of the East End Meeting. There was not very 
much of a ripple on account of the Elders' Convention, al- 
though there was a little the next Sabbath when I protested 
against the meeting being held there without my knowledge, 
without my consent, without the consent of the Board of 
Trustees, and without the consent of the session. I did pro- 
test, and I say I will protest against this ; and I ask this Court 
if they would not protest against such a thing. That is all the 
ripple there was. It smoothed down in a little time after- 
wards and went on peacefully. The picture he has drawn of 
my congregation is a picture of it now, not before Pittsburgh 
Presbytery's action. It was not the basis or ground of their 
taking action against us. The same thing can be said of all 
the congregations. 

I want to speak now in regard to the inadmissibility of the 
libel. I complain against the admissibility of the libel be- 
cause there were no witnesses to prove the allegations of the 
libel, and because there was no admission of the plan or pur- 
pose of following divisive courses. There has been objection 
made to that, that we are not charged with having admitted 
following a plan or purpose to divide the church. I want you 
to notice the language in an editoral in the Reformed Presby- 
terian and Covenanter for January 1891. This editorial was 
written after the trial of the five, and before I was tried. It 
says, "The libel stripped of all technical phrases was for 



TUESDAY, JUNE 9. 



395 



holding and propagating views opposed to and subversive of 
the church's position of political dissent, pursuing divisive 
courses, and insubordination. The facts were all admitted." 
I want to know what facts? Why the facts contained in the 
libel when the libel was stripped of all technical phrases. 

The MODERATOR : Are you replying to this? 

Rev. J. R. J. MILLIGAN : I am replying to what was said 
in the speeches on the other side. I have appealed or com- 
plained because I did not admit or deny having admitted the 
plan or the purpose of following a divisive course. They sort 
of ridiculed the idea, and I am showing that there was ground 
to make that complaint because if I had come to the meeting 
of Presbytery in January, when I was to be tried, and admit- 
ted the facts, I would have admitted the facts contained in the 
libel, which were holding and propagating views which were 
subversive of the church's position of dissent, pursuing a 
divisive course, and insubordination. 

The MODERATOR : The speaker must confine himself to 
the points made by the defendants. 

Rev. J. R. J. MILLIGAK : That has been made if I mistake 
not. 

The MODERATOR : They did not make the point in the 
magazine. 

Rev. R. J. MILLIGAN : I am making that point. Then I 
come back to the point that there were no witnesses to prove 
the allegation. The defendant said there was no necessity of 
witnesses, that the Court itself was the witness. You all re- 
member that. I want you to notice that the Court itself was 
the witness. They quote from Steuart's Collections, if I re- 
member correctly, and they quote this saying, "That confes- 
sions, if judicial, are the very strongest proof." They con- 
sider our statements as confessions and hence the very stron- 
gest proof. Let us jus: for a moment admit that '-Confessions, 
if judicial, are the very strongest proof." But what about 
that "if judicial?" Does that mean that statements made in 
one meeting of Presbytery are proof for the Court at a meet- 
ing of Presbytery held three months after, when the Court is 
made up of different members? We have proven that five 
members of the second Court were not members of the first. 
Is that a judicial confession? Why if I understand what 
"judicial" means it is confessions made during the progress 
of trial. We were not on trial when we made our statements. 
The fact of the matter is, Presbytery went into a Committee 
of the Whole, not by motion, but it amounted to that. It was 
for the purpose of settling the matter, or seeing eye to eye, 
and of mutual confidence being restored, that we made those 
statements. 

But I have another work. I quote here from the Encyclo- 
pedia; "Declarations. In criminal proceedings- 



396 



STENOGRAPHIC REPORT. 



Dr. MCALLISTER : What Encyclopedia are you reading 
from? 

Rev. J. R. J. MILLIGAX: Chambers*. "Declarations.— In 
criminal proceedings in Scotland the statement made by a 
prisoner before the magistrate or the clerk is called his decla- 
ration. It is the duty of the magistrate to take this declara- 
tion immediately upon the prisoner being brought to him. 
The magistrate must previously inform him that it is entirely 
at his own option to declare or not." Now this the Court 
did. "But that if he choose to declare, the declaration may 
be used in evidence against him on his trial." The magis- 
trate is to inform him of that, and that it may be used against 
him on the trial. Our Court told us it was unkind to intimate 
they might use our declarations as evidence against us on the 
trial. And then further : "This declaration was taken down 
by the clerk of the Court, the magistrate usually dictating to 
him the form of words, and then the declaration ought to 
contain the name, age and designation of the prisoner, the 
parish and county in which the crime is said to have been 
committed; when completed it must be read over to the pris- 
oner, who, if he is able to write, signs every page of it along 
with the magistrate.'" 

Now I submit if there was a single declaration of ours 
made in that way, or did we sign any declarations that should 
properly be used against us? The only record in the Minutes 
of Pittsburgh Presbytery is that "We attempted a defence of 
our connection with the East End Meeting and Platform.'' 
Then they draw from that these facts contained in the libel, 
attending the Meeting, adopting the Platform, and circulat- 
ing it. 

Again there is "Confession and Avoidance'' which you will 
find'in the same Encj^clopedia under "Confession:" -Con- 
fession and Avoidance, in pleading at common law, is the 
admission of an allegation by the opposite party but with the 
addition of some circumstance with deprives it of legal effect. 
As for instance, admitting that an assault was committed but 
alleging that it was committed in self-defence." Whatever 
confessions we made were made as "confession and avoid- 
ance." There were certain facts, but we declared that they 
were for the purpose not of disturbing the church, but for the 
purpose of correcting misrepresention. 

Another thing in regard to these confessions : "Confession 
in both Scotland and England to be admissible must have 
been made without any promise or pledge held out to induce 
it." A confession, to be admissible, must be made without 
any promise or threat held out to induce it. In our case there 
were both. In our case there was the promise that we were 
to make our statements in order that by a frank, open and 
candid expression of views we might be brought to see eye to 
eye, and mutual confidence be restored; and the threat was 



TUESDAY, JUNE 9. 



397 



that if we could not see eye to eye, and if we did not make 
statements, a committee was to be appointed to institute the 
process, prefer charges, and frame a libel. 

I say that our statements at the Pittsburgh Presbytery on 
October 15th are not admissible because they were made with 
both a promise and a threat, held over us to induce us to 
make those statements; so I maintain here once and for all 
that that libel was without a single witness. We were con- 
victed without a" particle of evidence, and so we stand con- 
demned. I want you to decide if that libel is admissible; and 
if that libel is not admissible, it stops the whole proceedings, 
and everything that follows is unjust. They should have 
gone home and gotten their evidence and put it on the libel, 
and then come and tried us on that. 

I pass from that to the matter of the breach of faith on the 
part of the Committee. We charge this upon them, and they 
charge it upon us. Now there is where the matter hangs. I 
believe every charge we made as a matter of fact, was admit- 
ted : that they said it was unkind ; they thought the matter 
settled; there was to be no resolution, nothing behind it; and 
that they gave us their hands in fraternal salutation. All this 
matter was admitted. But they say we circulated a report 
that the victory was for the liberals, and it aroused the 
church, and Brother Carlisle wrote a letter, and Brother 
Foster wrote a letter saying, "-You must hold the church to 
her principles and never surrender." And so they found that 
in order to have that basis pa>sed they would have to present 
resolutions. 

Now, I want to notice here on what they base that. It was 
a clipping from the Commercial Gazette of October 23rd. It 
has been stated here that the article in the Banner was based 
largely on the article in the Commercial Gazette. Brother 
Carlisle stated that what he wrote as to what he heard was 
from hearsay; it was not from letters written by us. Brother 
Foster did not say whether it was hearsay, through the paper, 
or from letters written to him. And so we have to conclude 
it was only hearsay. But all this was caused on account of 
that article in the Commercial Gazette. 

Let us see how much depends on that breach of faith on 
our part. It destroyed the possibility of the basis being ac- 
cepted; it brought in the resolutions which caused the five to 
withdraw their consent; this brought on the libeling of the 
five; then followed their suspension, then followed every- 
thing. Now, if we are responsible for the Commercial Gazette 
report, we are responsible for all that followed. I have said 
the church was aroused and letters written. Really then that 
item in the Commercial Gazette is responsible for the whole 
trouble. Who is responsible for it? The defendants say, the 
conservatives are not responsible. They hoot at that idea. 
Well, it is perfectly natural that they would not give it out, 



398 



STENOGRAPHIC REJtfOKT. 



that the liberals had won a victory. I think Mr. George said 
this : "The report that it was a triumph was wrong." Again 
he says : "It bears the imprint that it was given out by some 
one of the liberals." "This account gives evidence that one 
of the six was connected with the information." Again: 
"These reports came in disregard of our agreement not to 
disclose what occurred in that meeting. " I want to say here 
that our understanding was, we were not to disclose the basis 
of agreement. 

Dr. GEORGE : My remark in regard to bearing the imprint 
of one of the six did not refer to the article in the Commercial 
Gazette, b*it to the article in the Banner', and one of the six 
has mentioned his connection with it. 

Rev. J. R. J. MILLIGAN : He wants the church to know 
that the reports in the newspapers hindered the acceptance of 
the basis. I am not misrepresenting you. 

Dr. GEORGE : What is that? 

Rev. J. R. J. MILLIGAN: You want the church to know 
that the reports in the newspapers hindered the acceptance 
of the basis. Now what was the article in the Gazette o '. 
October 23rd? I think Dr. George had it in his hand. I have 
it here. I remember it perfectly well. I am going to read it 
to this Court: "Victory for the Liberals. The Conservatives 
of the Reformed Presbyterian church find the seventeen not 
guilty of heresy." 

Those are the head lines. Well, they are startling; and I 
confess when I saw it I said, "Well, the game is up, for the 
trouble all along has been that there has been too much 
weight given to the newspaper reports ; instead of coming to 
us they took their newspaper matter for their proof." "Th& 
liberal faction of the Reformed Presbyterian church has 
secured a victory in the action of the Committee on Investi- 
gation appointed by the Presbytery. A meeting was held 
yesterday afternoon in the Central Reformed Presbyterian 
church, Allegheny, of the Committee appointed at the last 
session of the Pittsburgh Presbytery, held at Wilkinsburgh, 
to investigate certain so-called heretical views expressed by 
seventeen clergymen, made after the last meeting of Synod, 
and to ascertain if these views were opposed to the doctrines 
held by the main body of the church. Of the seventeen 
clergymen charged with heresy there were present at the 
meeting the Revs. J. R. J. Milligan, O. B. Milligan, E. M. 
Milligan, W. L. C. Samson, Henry W. Temple, Hugh W. 
Reed and J. K. McClurkin. The meeting was a closed one 
and was presided over by Rev. J. W. Sproull, the Rev. Mr. 
George acting as secretary. What action was taken at this 
meeting has not been learned, but judging from the little of 
information that has leaked out, and the smile of satisfaction 
that beamed from the countenances of some of the members 
who appeared before the Committee, it is safe to conclude 



TUESDAY, JUNE 9. 



that the result of the meet'ng is a decided victory for the lib- 
erals. " They judged not from anything gotten from us, hut 
because we were smiling. "The Rev. J. R. J. Milligan was 
seen last night by Commercial Gazette reporter, and while he- 
refused to say anything about what was done at the meeting, 
he seemed to be in an excellent humor." Well, I was in an 
excellent humor; I was to be married the next night. "I am 
not at liberty to tell you what was done at the meeting this 
afternoon, but I can say that there were no charges made nor 
was there any trial. We merely discussed our views in a, 
friendly way together and came to the conclusion that prac- 
tically we agreed with each other upon these vexed ques- 
tions." "Rev. Sproull, a conservative, and chairman of the 
Committee, was also seen, and he, too, refused to say what 
was done at the meeting, but he said that the meeting was an 
exceedingly harmonious one, that there was no special di- 
vergence of views, and that it would be unnecessary to take- 
any action against the liberal members who appeared before 
the Committee." I submit before you and my God, if the lib- 
erals are responsible for that, and if that article was before 
Mr. George and the members of this Court, whether he had 
any grounds to put in his resolutions? He said that we had 
committed a breach of faith. I turn it on him. The breach 
of faith yet remains, because the reason he gave for putting 
in the resolutions are without foundation. There you have it. 

I want just to add a little more in this line. Will Mr. Stran- 
ahan say what he knows about the settle ment of this case, and 
about the report sent to their congregations in regard to it. I 
refer to Mr. Stranahan, the elder from Mr. Crowe's congrega- 
tion. 

Mr. STRANAHAN: All I have to say in regard to that is^ 
Mr. Crowe got up in the pulpit and said that he had received 
word from Mr. Sproull that it was settled, and we were alt 
rejoiced that it was settled. 

Rev. S. J. CROWE: I was assisting Dr. Sproull at com- 
munion just before the Commission sat, and had been exceed- 
ingly anxious to have it settled, and I asked him if he would : 
be kind enough to sent me word if they settled the matter. 
And he sent me a postal, and on that card was the single 
statement, "Difficulty amicably settled." I announced that 
to my congregation. 

Rev. J. R. J. MILLIGAN : I think Dr. Sproull had a per- 
fect right to send that. The only thing we were bound not to 
do was to reveal the basis of agreement; that was to be- 
brought out at the meeting of Presbytery, not before. But I 
submit now if the facts they brought out before you as an 
excuse for bringing these resolutions are valid. 

Do appeals stop suspension? Now I complain because the 
suspension was passed after an appeal ; and I read from our 
own Book and from the United Presbyterian Book in regard. 



400 



STENOGRAPHIC REPORT. 



to this matter. On the 80th page our Book says : "An appeal 
is the removal of a case already decided by an inferior judi- 
catory to a superior by a party aggrieved. " I have quoted it 
correctly. There has been great stress laid on the clause, 
••Already decided/' "An appeal is the removal of a case al- 
ready decided. ,, Well I think the thing was decided when I 
was found guilty. It looks to me that way. When I was tried 
for following a divisive course and found guilty, it was de- 
cided. An appeal is the removal of a case already decided." 
That looks to me like good common sense. 

But I go further, the relevancy was decided when the vote 
was taken. The relevancy was appealed; it removed the 
case. The admissibility was decided; the appeal removed 
the case. That looks to me like common sense. But we had 
a good deal of reading from Steuart's Collection in regard to 
this, and I want to read it too. I read from Steuart's Collec- 
tions, page 4 i6 : "Sentences are in themselves null when pro- 
nounced against the general acts of the church, or by an in- 
competent judge, such as the sentence of Kirk Sessions ' 
against Ministers, or even by Presbyteries and Synods, when 
the process is carried and admitted before their superior judi- 
catures.' ' When we appealed we removed the case and that 
sent us up to the superior judicatory. Our appeal from the 
sentence of guilty suspends the case so far as that court is 
concerned, because we sent it up to the superior court by our 
appeal. 

But then on the next page, section 11, as to the effect of 
appeals, reads: "They do not sustain a suspensive effect but 
a devoluting effect.* 1 I am translating the Latin in which it 
is given, and I believe I translate it about as the Doctor did. 
]STow, suspending .there means stopping the trial altogether. 
An appeal has a devolutive effect; it develops the case into 
the next superior court. That is what it does. It develops 
the case by my appeal into the next superior court: u An ap- 
peal made by parties should sist the execution of the sentence 
appealed from, only while the appeal is duly and diligently 
prosecute. 1 * When I appealed from the conviction it stopped 
the execution of that *-onl3 r while the appeal is duly and dili- 
gently prosecute. 11 My appeal was "duly and diligently 
prosecute 11 when I made my appeal and sent it within ten 
days up to Presbytery, and am here to meet it. My appeal 
has been "duly and diligently prosecute" all this time, hence 
the appejl stops the decision to that time. "And may there- 
by be determined, otherwise not. 11 Determined here whether 
my appeal is sustained or not sustained. That is if it is not 
sustained by this Court, then Pittsburgh Presbytery has a 
right to go on and execute the sentence; but she has no right 
to execute that sentence before. And I claim that according 
to the Scotch Law and Steuart's Collections my appeal 
stopped the execution of the sentence until this present time. 



TUESDAY, JUNE 9. 



40 L 



And then, if this Court sustained my appeal, it stopped it al- 
together. If it does not, then Presbytery can execute sen- 
tence, and not before. I think that is common sense. The 
idea that a man cannot take an appeal and stop anything 
until the sentence has been gone through, is perfectly absurd. 
A man is arrested and is on trial for debt. The court finds he 
owes that debt. He appeals to the next court. What for? 
Why to keep them from levying on his property, and the 
higher court can either decide his case for him or against 
him. But if they decide for him, and they have gone and 
levied on his property, where would his property be by that 
time? Why certainly an appeal stops the case when they ap- 
peal from the sentence of guilty as found. 1 do not believe I 
will say anything more about that. 

I want to notice now some charges made against me. 1. It 
was said I had prejudged the case of the five, and had no 
right to charge these five men that voted against me without 
any evidence, with doing what I have done myself. I want 
this Court to understand that I gave my decision according to 
the law and evidence; they had no evidence. I was content, 
as a member of that Court, to vote against the sentence of 
being guilty; the other men without any evidence voted to 
admit the libel, and to lind me guilty. Now there is the dif- 
ference. 

2. I was so intimate with Dr. McClurkin that I should not 
be taken back into the church. Well, I am very thankful the 
'man has paid me that compliment. 

Dr. MCALLISTER : Are you quoting my language. . 

Rev. J. R. J. MILLIGAJST : I believe I have got it here. 
"Because of his intimacy with a gentleman who is considered 
a leader in this case, and whose known views are that voting 
at elections should not be" made a condition of membership.''' 
I know to whom he had referen3e. That reference was to 
Dr. McClurkin. 

Dr. MCALLISTER : That is true. But go on. What did I 
say further? 

Rev. J. R. J. MILLIGA1ST: And that because of that my 
case should not be considered differently from the rest. 

Dr. MCALLISTER: That is what I want. 

Rev. J. R. J MILLIGAISr : That my case should not be con- 
sidered differently from the rest. Well, he does not want any 
of us to go back, or • o be sustained in our appeals ; and so I 
say again, there should not be any difference made in my case 
because of intimacy with Dr. McClurkin. I want to ask this 
Court if they think that Dr. McClurkin's views are my views? 
Has Dr. McClurkin by his writing that letter without my 
knowledge, by his withdrawing from the church without my 
knowledge, and from the fact that he has withdrawn from the 
church, shown that what he holds is my opinion? I leave 
that to you. 3. Because I have no right to claim that I should 



402 



STENOGRAPHIC REPORT. 



have the old basis instead of the new. This brings me to Dr. 
George's request to show how I differed from the rest, and on 
what ground Presjytery should have offered me the old basis. 
Is that right? 

Dr. GEORGE : That is right. 

Rev. J. R. J. MILLIGAN : I want you to notice that when 
the resolutions of Mr. George were adopted in Presbytery, 
that then the motion for the adoption of the report was called 
up ; the five stated that, the Court having taken the above 
action, they withdrew their assent. Now these are matters of 
record. Then the Committee was given power to prefer 
libels, etc., and then follows the resolution : "That J. R. J. 
Milligan and A. W. McClurkin not being present, the report 
be laid on the table so far as it related to them." 

Now notice one or two things. First, either Presbytery is 
responsible for the young men not getting a settlement on the 
basis ; or the young men themselves are responsible, because 
they withdrew their assent; I hope you catch the idea. Who 
is responsible that we were not allowed to settle on that first 
basis? Either Presbytery or the young men. Now that is 
settled. If the young men were responsible because they 
withdrew their assent, then I should be allowed to settle on 
that basis if I did not withdraw my assent. The second fact 
is : Presbytery would not allow us to have that basis, and 
were determined we could not settle on that basis. Then why 
did they not order my libel and Mr. McClurkin's libel when 
they libeled the other five? I maintain they made the differ- 
ence first, not me. They did not declare that Presbj r tery 
prefer libels against us when they did against the five. They 
said to lay that report on the table so far as it related to them ; 
and of course they made a difference between us. What was 
the difference? Why the simple difference was that Mr. 
McClurkin and I had not withdrawn our assent, and the rest 
had. And when they laid that on the table, so far as it related 
to me, it was certainly for my acceptance or for my rejection. 

4. It has been charged that I have not preached Covenan- 
ter principles. Ihey admit that I have not preached against 
Covenanter principle but they say my sin is a sin of omission 
rather than of commission. Well, I admit that I have not 
been preaching a series of sermons on Roman Catholicism ; 
nor on the Bible in the Public Schools; nor on National Re- 
form; nor on Theaters. I have left that to Dr. McAllister. I 
admit that; but I deny that ever I went one inch out of my 
way to escape a single principle of our church. Just about a 
year ago I preached a sermon against secret societies, and it 
got into the papers. I showed the sin of belonging to such 
organizations. I made the illustration of secret societies and 
of our own government, and so it went into the papers. Now 
I say here, that charge is perfectly without foundation. 

But again, I was ordained to the ministry, and there was a 



TUESDAY, JUNE 9. 



403 



text given to me to preach on when I was ordained. The text 
was: "For I determined not to preach anything among you 
save Jesus Christ, and him Crucified." And I propose, 
Brethren of the Covenanter church, of the entire Covenanter 
church, and my great ambition shall be, to be a preacher of 
the Gospel of our Lord and our Saviour. I saw the Gospel is 
the power of God unto salvation, and before I was ordained 
to the ministry, my aunt, Miss Johnston, than whom was no 
one whose advice I admire more, and whom I love more than 
any one except my mother, said to me, '"Jiminie, don't you 
preach all the time on National Keform ; you be a preacher 
of the Gospel." And, Brethren, I want to get so worked up 
on the Gospel theme that I shall call into exercise every 
faculty of my mind. I do not want to cultivate this debating 
and fighting and arguing spirit in my preaching; I want to 
cultivate a spirit that will make me a powerful preacher of 
the Gospel of Jesus Christ; that is what I am laboring for, 
and that is what I propose to do. That is what I was ordained 
to do. And to charge me with having omitted the principles 
of our church is a charge which has no foundation in fact. 

And now, Brethren, I am done. I am sure you must be 
weary. But I have to say here as I said before, I am here 
asking for justice. I think that we have shown you that that 
libel was not admissible because it had no testimony. I think 
I have shown you that the breach of faith rests on others, I 
think I have shown you that the suspension after my appeal 
was wrong. And I think I have shown you that so far as be- 
ing an honest preacher in the Keformed Presbyterian church 
is concerned, no charge can be brought against me. May 
God help you, may he assist you in coming to a right conclu- 
sion; may the Holy Spirit be poured out; may the prayers to 
be offered at this noon- day prayer meeting as to the outpour- 
ing of His spirit upon His people be answered by an outpour- 
ing upon these people here, upon you in this Court ; as well as 
upon the people in our church. 

Prof. D. B. WILLSON: I will just ask permission to make 
a statement. My brother Mr. Milligan called me out on the 
point whether I had spoken of an organization. He said I 
certainly had referred to the point of an organization. Now, 
it is only due to myself to say that in Presbytery I used the 
words with which they headed their own Platform ; I said 
they did not need, in meeting together for the explanation of 
their views, to make a platform. A platform is made for 
persons to stand upon, to make converts too. When the 
republican party made its platform it was a party; and when 
the democratic members met together and framed their plat- 
form, they formed an organization. I argued in that line. It 
was not this question of veracity between Mr. Carson and this 
brother. 



404 



STENOGRAPHIC REPORT. 



Kev. J. K. J. MILLIGAN: This matter in regard to Mr. 
Carson did not come up until I was convicted. 

Prof. WILLSON : It was an argument as to the Platform. 

Rev. J. R. J. MILLIGAN: You brought that in in your 
second speech? 

Prof. WILLSON ; That was my ground of argument. 

Rev. J. R. J. MILLIGAN: That was one of them. 

Prof. WILLSON : Yes. I say I believe I proved it then, 
and I have not been argued out of it since. 

The MODERATOR : We will proceed to hear the defence 
of Pittsburgh Presbytery in reply to what has been said by 
the appellants. 

Dr. R. J. GEORGE: Mr. Moderator, Fathers and Breth- 
ren: You will understand perfectly well that the limit- 
ations placed upon us by the will of the Court indicated that 
we cannot propose to follow these brethren along the lines of 
their rebuttal in detail. We have endeavored to make some 
little division of the matter, so as not both to occupy our- 
selves with the same questions. 

The first thing I have to say is that I feel that our brethren 
rest their case too entirely on their ability to awaken distrust 
in the minds of the Court with reference to their brethren. I 
recall a remark made by Dr. Sloane in his lifetime with^ ref- 
erence to our good Prof. Willson, who was one of the prose- 
cutors on behalf of our Presbytery in this case, and to whom 
reference has been especially made by the last speaker. He 
3aid that Prof. D. B. Willson had less original sin than any 
man he ever knew. Now if that be true he has made a won- 
derful development of the small amount that he had if he has 
been at all chargeable with all that has been cast upon him in 
connection with this case, and spread in a very public way 
before the church. Because they have not hesitated to say 
that he was actuated bv malice and venom in his prosecution. 
Rev. J. S. T. MLLLlGAN: I shall object to that. 

Dr. R. J. GEORGE : If I am to be cut short 

The MODERATOR : Statements were made on the floor- 
Prof. D. B. WILLSON: I shall object to this. I think it is 
new evidence. 

Dr. R. J. GEORGE : It is my statement in support of what 
I have just said, that from the beginning they have rested 
their ability to vindicate themselves before the church, and 
before the Christian world, on the misrepresentation of their 
brethren. You have had a very striking example of that on 
the floor of this Court. 

I wait long enough to clear away again the fog thrown over 
the question of the Judicial Commission and the Judicial 
Committee. I want the clerk of the Pittsburgh Presbytery to 
occupy only a moment to state to the Court the fact with ref- 
erence to the report of the Committeee on Discipline as it 



TUESDAY, JUNE 9. 



405 



cauie to his hand from mine, because ruy brother E, M. Milli- 
gan has aired this question once more. 

Key. W. R. LAIRD : The brethren coming to see the Min- 
utes asked why the record of striking out certain things was 
not on the Minute, and then asked for the original report of 
which that item was a copy; and I told them, "This is all the 
report I have.'' And I related to them what I related to you, 
that at the close of- that meeting of Presbytery I was going on 
east, to Xew York, to assist Brother Sommeiville, and then up 
into Vermont, and I sent back home the papers by my elder ; 
and that the report of the Committee on Discipline was inter- 
lined because of its amendment, and Brother George took it 
with him to write it out. He says that I proposed that to 
him. and I think that is very likely, because it is just what I 
would do again, as I thought that was proper. That was my 
plan, for him to keep that report of the Committee on Disci- 
pline until I would return. I think this explains the state- 
ments of the brethren that they could not find the original 
report. I did not have it. I showed them all I had. And it 
explained Brother George's position, that; he took this report 
home to write it out as it was finally adopted, and make it 
more legible to me. 

Dr. R. J. GEORGE : That is somewhat new to me. I would 
like to know whether the brother made known to these breth- 
ren the fact which he has now stated? 

Rev. W. R. LAIRD : About what? 

Dr. R. J. GEORGE : That I had written the report at your 
request for that purpose? 

Rev. W. R. L \IRD : I am not sure that I said at whose re- 
quest; I am very certain I said, as is customary, and as I 
thought proper, it was left in your hands to be written out as 
it was subsequently amended. 

Dr. R. J. GEORGE : I must ask further. Did Brother Laird 
understand from them that they had a suspicion with refer- 
ence to this matter? 

Rev. Mr. LAIRD : I did not. 

Dr. GEORGE : Because if you did I should have a very 
hard time excusing you. 

Rev. Mr. LAIRD: There was no intimation of any suspi- 
cion given to the clerk; and the first I heard intimated was 
here on the floor of this Court: otherwise I should have given 
more attention to any explanation I might have thought nec- 
essary. 

Dr. GEORGE; You see I am compelled to this course be- 
cause a large part of this defence rests upon the ability of 
these brethren to fix upon me duplicity at some point with 
reference to this case, and because my brother, the Rev. E. 
M. Milligan, after all that transpired with reference to Bro- 
ther Reed, and his magnanimous clearing me of it, thought 
necessary to recapitulate the facts and stated that he thought 



406 



STENOGRAPHIC REPORT. 



these facts justified the suspicion, and if the brother had not 
done what he did, that he would have done what Brother 
Reed did. 

Xow all I want to use that for is to put into the mind of this 
Court that these young men have had a suspicion in their 
minds with reference to certain of us that led them to be ab- 
solutely unjust in their fixing suspicion upon us without a 
shadow of foundation, and that they have gone so far as to be 
willing to convey that suspicion to the mind of a public as- 
semblage like this, without affording us the opportunity, 
which they would insist was so fully due to themselves, in all 
public matters concerning them and their brethren, of com- 
ing to us personally and seeking an explanation. 

My brethen, they have two faults. Tbe one is too great a 
suspicion of their brethren, and the other too great a com- 
placency with reference to themselves. It is hardly the proper 
thing, even in illustration, to justify their secrec^v, or the 
measure of it attributed to them, with the idea that they are 
Jamie Douglas and the Covenanters of Scotland hiding them- 
selves from Claverhouse and his Dragoons, represented by 
Pittsburgh Presbytery; that is hardly proper. It is hardly 
proper, when for illustration it is said that Dr. Briggs might 
be taken to show how one may be chargeable with that which 
w T ould separate him from a position in the church and yet not 
be chargeable with immorality, when his name was mention- 
ed in connection with the statement of his scholarly attain- 
ments and his high religious and moral character, as it stands 
before the world; and Brother MacQueary was introduced as 
an illustration of the same kind with reference to another point, 
and then it seemed to them that they were in the position 
presented to the world when three crosses stood out dark 
against the sky, and our Lord was crucified between two 
thieves. A.nd you will remember that Dr. Briggs and Bro- 
ther MacQuear}'- according to this must represent the two 
thieves whose ignominy it was attempted to put upon the 
heads of these brethren, and so attach some odium to them 
which could not be attached to their own position. 

Now that is where I say there is too great complacency. I 
think that will not be complimentary^ to Dr. Briggs or to 
Brother MacQuearj^, and is more than just to themselves. 
And then the position which they would seek for themselves 
in this illustration of our Lord is still more difficult. 

Now I pass to call your attention to facts by which I hope 
to clear away some of this doubt. And the first fact is that 
Pittsburgh Presbytery alone is on trial. I want to get that 
before your minds — Pittsburgh Presbytery alone is on trial, 
and with reference to its Presbyterial acts. Not with refer- 
ence to memorials that came before it, and with which it had 
no responsibility, only to deal with them as memorials are 
dealt with; not with reference to the call for the Elders' 



TUESDAY, JUNE 9. 



407 



Convention, only as to the right or wrong of it to be recogn- 
ized as sending a memorial to Presbytery, which I think none 
of you will question; — but Pittsburgh Presbytery alone is on 
trial. And the que-tion that comes to you to settle with re- 
gard to the complaint of injustice and wrong, you must have 
in your minds simply, What did Pittsburgh Presbytery do 
with regard to these cases? 

The second thought I wish to insist upon is, that it has been 
established before you that the Judicial Committee was not a 
commission. That. I think, has been settled in your minds. 
That this Judicial Committee was a judicial committee by the 
appointment of Presbytery, never was anything else, never 
exercised any other powers than that of a committee, and for 
that reason was only capable of formulating a basis of agree- 
ment with the young men upon which the Presbytery itself 
reserved the right to pass. Presbytery did not forego in any 
measure its right to deal with that basis as its own document 
when it should come before it. Keep that in mind. 

These young men, whatever they may say with reference 
to being deceived about this, did know that the conclusions 
of that conference must be submitted to Presbytery and ac- 
cepted by it. Bear that in mind. Although they may say 
that they regarded it as a commission, they do say. and they 
have made clear to you. that they understood perfectly well 
that that settlement was not final until Pittsburgh Presbytery 
itself gave approval to that basis, and that the brethren 
whom they held bound were simply bound to them to stand 
by the basis when Presbytery came to act upon it; but they 
did not understand, and they could not. that we were acting 
with powers by which we were enabled to settle it. Let that 
fix itself in your mind. 

So much has been said as to the different views among our- 
selves as to whether we were a committee or a commission, 
that I wish to refer to this fact, that Dr. Sproull, who was 
chairman of it. did not observe the change made by the Pres- 
bytery and so constituted it as a commission, but the moment 
we arose from our knees, for we knelt in prayer in the con- 
stitution of the Court, he asked for the Minute of our ap- 
pointment, and the Minute being taken from this report of 
the Committee on Discipline. I produced it and read it, and 
our brother at once accepted that, and all the other members 
of the Committee understood at the time, as I remember, that 
it was a committee. There was no question in our minds, 
only in the mind of the chairman, and that but for the 
moment, with reference to it. Am I rio;ht'? 

Dr. J. W. SPROULL : I believe I called attention to the 
lact when the Minute was read. And I would also state, in 
order that the Court may understand this, that I happened to 
be called home when this Minute was changed in the Presby- 
tery and that accounts for my not noticing it. 



408 



STENOGRAPHIC REPORT. 



Dr. R. J. GEORGE : I hope now it is clear to all your 
minds that this was a judicial committee; that the results of 
its finding were to go before Presbytery and that they had no 
binding force on Presbytery until the Presbytery itself had 
accepted and adopted the basis submitted; and that that was 
a result of the resolution on the part of the Presbytery, to deal 
with this question as a Presbytery, and not entrust it to any 
body of men; and that this fact was understood and known 
by the young brethren themselves according to the state- 
ments they have made before you. 

The next point I suggest is that the resolutions adopted by 
the Presbytery were not part of the basis. You see how 
much has been made on the floor of the Court and elsewhere 
of the representation that these resolutions which a member 
of the Court introduced were made a part of the basis. Xow 
I hope it is clear to all of you that there is no foundation for 
that statement. Reasons have been assigned here that seemed 
to the mover of them sufficient for presenting them at the 
time he did. Whether they were sufficient or not is not a 
question that is before you. It is not a question that was be- 
fore Pittsburh Presbytery. 

The simple fact is that these resolutions were presented, 
and the additional fact is that they were not presented by a 
member of the Committee as a member of the Committee, but 
as a member of Presbytery, which was distinctly stated; and 
that they were not as in any way connected with the basis, or 
to be accepted by the young men themselves. There is no 
reasonable justification for any one supposing that they were 
thus presented. 

As has been said, deliberate time was taken to make plain 
to the minds of the Court, and of the brethren — these young 
friends understood that they were no part of the basis, and 
that they were submitted as entirely distinct from it, and 
without any relation to it. How. possibly, could a member of 
the Court submit the basis as having been accepted by them, 
and then submit this as a part of the basis of agreement? 
There was no such representation made. The case was par- 
ticularly guarded at that point. 

But what I wish to present is that the resolutions were not 
so considered by the Court. The two papers referred to were 
considered side by side, but not as connected together; just 
as we take up a report that bears on a subject here, and also 
take up in connection with that another report bearing on the 
same subject, and we consider the two important papers to- 
gether; and when we have considered Ihem. then we take 
action upon the one and then take action upon the other. 
There was no other connection than that between these reso- 
lutions and the basis of agreement submitted by the Judicial 
Committee. 

Had the Presbytery a right to pass such resolutions? What 



TUESDAY, JUNE 9. 



409 



were the resolutions? Well, there were two of them that were 
adopted. The first was the resolution condemning the East 
End Meeting; not "condemning it" as it was submitted, but 
"disapproving of it" as having been held without due regard 
to the authority of 'Synod in its act forbidding the propaga- 
tion of these views. The other was a resolution condemning 
the East End Platform as unscriptural. Had the Presbytery 
the right to pass such resolutions? If it had not, why not? 
With whom was the Presbytery bound not to express its 
views of the East End Platform and the East End Meeting? 
Certainty not with these young men? They had no agree- 
ment with Presbytery. Presbytery never entered into any 
engagement with them that it would not express condem- 
nation of the Platform which it looked upon in this way. 
There was no possibility of Presbytery breaking faith with 
them on this point, for Presbytery had no agreement with 
them on this point. 

Had Pittsburgh Presbytery a right to express its conviction 
in regard to that Meeting? I do not know upon what ground 
any one can question it. Is it an injustice and wrong to those 
who saw fit to hold that Meeting that the Presbytery in seek- 
ing to care for the interests of their congregations would say 
to them, "We regard that Meeting as having been held 
without proper recognition of the authority of the church; 
and we regard that Platform as being contrary to our stand- 
ards and to our principles." Why Brethren, I cannot under- 
stand under what obligations any one considers this Court of 
Christ's house had placed itself to keep its mouth closed with 
reference to a document of that kind ; and how any one attempts 
to represent to you that there was any breach of faith by 
Pittsburgh Presbytery in passing resolutions of this kind in 
reference to that Meeting at any point in its proceedings at 
which it saw fit. is more than I can see. 

That was the next point which I presented, that is, that 
these resolutions which were adopted were no part of the 
basis ; that these young friends were not asked to accept them 
at all. The record says that they were permitted to enter 
their protest against them on the Minute. Those resolutions 
could not in any way affect the truthfulness of their engage- 
ment in the basis of agreement, upon which we entered, that 
they would hold certain positions and views. Xow the course 
of Presbytery was straight forward up to this point. It was- 
on the discussion of this question that this basis of agreement, 
submitted by the Judicial Committee, came to be discredited . 
And by whom? And in what way? 

I w T ant you now to bear that in mind that it is before you in 
the record, and has been before you in the presentation of the 
case, that the discrediting of the action of that Ccmmittee 
was* on the part of these brethren themselves by the state- 
ments made on the floor of the Court that they did not sign 



410 



STENOGRAPHIC REPORT. 



that agreement or did not give their approval to that agree- 
ment, (for they did not sign it), they did not give their assent 
to that agreement, only with certain explanations and reserva- 
tions that they understood to be a part of that agreement ; 
that they also brought to view on the floor of the Court at 
that time that there was an organization. This was stated by 
the Secretary of the Meeting on his authority as Secretary, — 
that there was an organization formed at the East End and 
that that organization was in existence. 

Now it would be very gratifying to me to gather before you 
some of the discussion with reference to the truth of that re- 
presentation but it is not necessary to my argument at this 
point and I leave it to my brother to present in connection 
with the disclosure made to him by Mr. Temple, of which he 
must speak, with reference to that organization. What I say 
is that Pittsburgh Presbytery had good ground for beljeving 
there was an organization. She had the testimony on her 
floor of the Secretary of that Meeting who had been publicly 
known as its Secretary from the prints, that they did form a 
permanent organization : and not only that, but so strong was 
that organization over him that he was not able to give his 
assent to this basis of agreement until he had conferred with 
a member of the Judicial Committee and he had made up his 
mind to withdraw from that organization. 

Now Pittsburgh Presbytery had that fact before her along 
with that basis, and also the additional fact that that was not 
made known to the Committee when it formed that basis. 
Two members of that Committee, when that fact was brought 
out arose and said that if the fact of that East End organiza- 
tion had been known to the Judicial Committee, as it was now 
known to Presbytery, that they would not have given their 
assent to that basis, because the organizing a body like that 
within the bounds of the Reformed Presbyterian church on a 
platform that was subversive of the fundamental principles of 
this church was a wrong of such a character that the Presby- 
tery could not consent to any basis of agreement that did not 
involve the withdrawal from, and breaking up of that organi- 
zation. 

Now, my Brethren, I want you to remember that that basis 
of agreement about which so much is said was discredited on 
the floor of the Court before the Court came to act upon it, — 
the Court that must act upon it was discredited by these young 
men themselves in that way and to that extent that made it 
impossible for a Court of Christ's house, dealing sincerely, to 
accept it as a sincere document. I want you to remember in 
that connection that my brother J. R. J. Milligan who was 
not present when it was discredited, and who has made a 
great deal of the fact that he was not present, and that he had 
a right to have it presented to him, stated to you this morning 
that he could not conscientiously enforce the law of this 



TUESDAY, JUNE 9. 



411 



church with reference to one using the right of suffrage in 
voting for officers, because this church allowed her members 
to vote for amendments. He said he could not conscientiously 
do it. 

I also want you to remember that the second article in that 
basis of agreement to which" he gave his assent and which he 
insists Presbytery was still bound to give to him, bound him 
by his agreement to carry out and enforce that law. If that 
is true, then by his own words he was binding himself in that 
agreement as a minister of this church and as Moderator of 
the session to do what he could not conscientiously do. My 
Brethren, w r hat does that teach you? It teaches you that for the 
sake of holding together we were going a little further than 
men had a right to go. My brother was making a great 
sacrifice rather than break up his relations. I know it was 
rather than break up his relations because, had he been con- 
sistent he w^ould not have done it. But rather than have 
these relations sundered he thought he could do it. He was 
undertaking more than God allows a conscientious man to do, 
and Pittsburgh Presbytery was undertaking more than God 
allows a conscientious man to do w T hen she was proposing 
this basis of agreement — after bhe had passed resolutions that 
there was a Platform that was unscriptural and subversive of 
her testimony, when she was proposing that men should 
remain in her ministry, and as pastors of her church, who 
could not disavow that basis of agreement. 

I tell you, my Brethren, that is the reason why it failed. 
We did pray. Yes, w r e did pray, and as I have said to you, 
w r e got a hold of the hand of our Lord and it was not the will 
of our Lord that these brethren should bind themselves to an 
agreement which they state candidly before you they could 
not carry out, in the fear of God, with reference to the en- 
forcement of the law which they did not believe to be 
scriptural; aid that this Presbytery should not enter into an 
agreement by wilich it should permit ministers to remain 
pastors of its churches, administrators of its law, who had 
avowed principles, and published them, wmich Presbytery 
itself declared to be unscriptural and contrary to the standards 
of the church. 

I do not feel called upon to defend all my course of action 
with reference to that basis of agreement. I acted conscien- 
tiously, according to the light I had, and I could clear away 
a great deal of w r hat has been said this morning if 1 thought 
you wanted to wait for it. But I submit, the Presbytery did 
what it had a right to do when it passed these resolutions 
condemning the Meeting and the Platform, and that it could 
not break faith with men concerning whom it had no faith 
pledged. It had not adopted the basis submitted to it, and 
the withdrawing of their assent from it led necessarily to the 



412 



STENOGRAPHIC REPORT. 



result that the basis itself was laid on the table with reference 
to those five. 

I have shown you in connection with that, that my brother 
Mr. Milligan, who was not present, and who has indicated his 
view of it to you this morning, could not demand this basis. 
Now these are the points as far as 1 think it necessary for 
me to follow that part of the case. My brother, Dr. Mc- 
Allister, takes up the case at the point at which the libel was 
framed. 

I have shown you that the Presbytery alone is on trial 
before you and with reference to its action. I have brought 
clearly before your minds that the Presbytery in its wisdom 
appointed a Judicial Committee and reserved to itself the 
right to pass upon the conclusions reached by this Committee, 
and that this was undestood by all the parties concerned, — 
that no action was final settlement until the Presbytery itself 
had accepted it. 

I have shown to you that the resolutions which Presbytery 
adopted were resolutions which Presbytery was competent to 
adopt. I have shown you that Presbytery adopted these re- 
solutions not as any part of Uie agreement which these men 
should accept, but as the expression of its own conviction 
with reference to the East End Meeting and Platform. And 
I have shown you that when this was done the brethren them- 
selves discredited the agreement in such a way as made it 
impossible for the Presbytery to accept it. 

Now there is one point which I think I should mention in 
connection with that. It is with reference to the significance 
of the Platform itself. The only point I see possible to be 
made against my argument as I presented it is that the Pres- 
bytery put an interpretation upon this Platform which the 
framers of it did not intend, and so continued to discredit 
them. 

I bring this forward because my brother E. M. Milligan 
gave as a reason for withdrawing his assent, (which he says 
was only from the third paragraph,) that that resolution if 
passed, condemning the Platform as unscriptural and as 
contrary to our standards, was to discredit him as a minister 
who was known to adhere to it; and so discredit him that it 
was a continuance of the slanders that had been made against 
him. Of course his argument is that it was slanderous be- 
cause it was untruthful. 

My brother Mr. Keed, made a very strong declaration on 
yesterday, that it was merely an explanation, and one or 
two of the brethren said to me that their minds were some- 
what affected by the statement made by Mr. Keed, that this 
second plank in the Platform which he himself had moved 
was intended only as a explanation of our position ; that it 
wag not intended in the sense in which it was used, and he 
went so far as to say that it was an explanation made in the 



TUESDAY, JUNE 9. 



413 



interest of the conservatives. That it was not intended to be 
a liberal resolution at all but a radical conservative resolution 
for the preservation of the church. 

A great deal has been said about this East End Meeting 
being for the sake of explanation, and that the necessity for 
it arose from the necessity of making an explanation. In 
order to get atthe meaning of it then we must know just what 
it was intended to explain. They say that the need of ex- 
planation came'from the misrepresentation of their position 
at Synod; that it had gone out over the church that they had 
taken positions at Synod that were unscriptural and that were 
opposed to our church, and that so great was the odium at- 
tached to themselves that they felt obligated to come together 
and make themselves understood. 

Xow what was it they did at Synod which led to these un- 
favorable reflections upon them as Reformed Presbyterian 
ministers, and that created the necessity for the explanation? 
Well, we have it formulated here and I want to read it to you 
once more. It is in these reasons of protest against the action 
of last Synod on the question of church union: "We specially 
protest against the approval or adoption of the Committee's 
addition to the basis of union, which pledges not to vote nor 
hold office under the United States Constitution, as a farther 
condition of membership in our church : 1. Because, although 
our sessions have long required such a condition of member- 
ship, yet it was never incorporated in our standards, must be 
overtured and adopted before it can be a lawful term of com- 
munion, and is contrary to the principles of our testimony." 

That is one thing that this East End Platform proposes to 
explain, and the second plank is the one place in which .that 
explanation is distinttly made, and that second plank is as 
follows: "That persons who make a credible profession of 
Christ should be received into church membership on their 
acceptance of our Testimony and Terms of Communion with- 
out binding them to our explanation in the matter of political 
dissent or in other questions/ 1 

Xow, Brethren, I want you to put these two things to- 
gether. I want you to remember that these brethren say that 
this was written as an explanation of the reflections upon 
them. They have said that. And I want you to remember 
that they say there : "Although our sessions have long re- 
quired such a condition of membership, yet it was never in- 
corporated in our standards, must be overtured and adopted 
before it can be a lawful term of communion/' They had 
decided already and put their names to it that this is not a 
term of communion within the Kef ormed Presbyterian church, 
and is not in her standards. They say to you, "What fault 
have you got to find with that? Why, that says you must ac- 
cept the Testimony and the Terms of Communion and all the 
Standards of the church. What fault have you to And with 



414 



STENOGRAPHIC REPORT. 



that? Who wants to ask anything more than that? And when 
you raise any objection and say that is against the Testimony, 
they say, tk Why, that takes in the Testimony and Terms of 
Communion." You heard that, did you not? I want you to 
remember that these men when they adopted that Platform 
were explaining this language in their dissent, and this says 
that this is not in the standards, it is not part of the terms 
of communion, it is simply an arrangement made by the 
session. 

Oh, my Brethren, is it absolutely useless then for men to 
attempt such a thing? You may cover over the secrecy of that 
Meeting in any way you please, and whether it is an organi- 
zation or not; but I tell you these things, written down this 
way, and put before us, are a little too plain; and men with 
common sense and common purpose who understand men as 
they wrote this (referring to the Reasons of Dissent) down in 
black and white cannot be deceived with reference to the 
intent and purpose of the East End Platform and the meaning 
of it. I want you to keep that in mind. 

But that is not all of this explanation: 4i 2. Because it 
makes our explanation of the terms a term of communion 
binding the conscience, which we have always disclaimed. 3. 
Because it is a mere opinion that only proficient students of 
the Bible and of Political Philosophy can understand, and 
thus excludes Christ's little ones from church privileges 
contrary to his express will. 4. Because it dishonors us and 
our covenanted fathers as having entirely omitted from our 
Testimony that which is now plain to have been all along our 
chief term of communion, whose omission the Committee in 
their statemei t say, 'would leave the United church without 
anv justifiable ground of separate denominational existence.' " 

Why, Brethren, it is a most mavellous thing to me that 
with this document before you and with the statements that 
have been made over and over again upon the floor that this 
East End Meeting was to correct the misrepresentations that 
grew out of that first document, and that this does correct 
and explain tie other,— it is a most marvellous thing to say 
that it is not set forth distinctly that it is the view and position 
of these men that enforcement of practical political dissent as 
a term of communion in the Reformed Presl yterian church is 
contrary to our standards. 

(Upon motion a recess was taken until 1:30 o'clock). 

AFTERNOON SESSION. 

The MODERATOR : At the time of recess Dr. R. J. George 
had the floor, speaking in defence of the action of Pittsburgh 
Presbytery. 

Dr. R. J. GEORGE: Mr. Moderator, Fathers and Brethren. 
At the time of adjournment we were considering the inter- 
pretation of the second plank in the East End Platform by the 



TUESDAY, JUNE 9. 



415 



Pittsburgh Presbytery in its second resolution, in which it 
declared that this plank is contrary to the Scriptures and sub- 
versive of the subordinate standards and of the fundamental 
position of this church. 

I was astonished at the interpretation put upon this plank 
by our brother the Eev. Mr. Keed, who said that he was him- 
self the mover of it, and I suppose claimed on that ground the 
right especially to interpret it. Our brother Mr. Milligan 
speaking this morning expresses his approval of, and his 
gratification at the interpretation given by Mr. Keed. But it 
seemed to have been somewhat new to him, I thought from 
the way he spoke; however, he was willing to accept it. 

I was endeavoring to show that we hardly at this day 
accept this as to the intention or understanding of that plank 
in the East End Platform as it was promulgated throughout 
the church, for this reason, that the brethren have claimed all 
along that the East End Meeting was a necessity arising from 
misinterpretations and misunderstandings of their position as 
interpreted and understood in times past. 

I brought together two documents ; The Eeasons of Dissent 
as prepared by the minority, the seventeen as they were 
called, with reference to the action of Synod on the adoption 
of the report of the Committee on union, and 1 think I need 
not read again to you those Eeasons of Dissent, but simply 
say that they set forth distinctly that the dissent is grounded 
upon 1 he fact that the items proposed by our Committee on 
union to be accepted by our sister churches on the position of 
political dissent were an addition to the Testimony and Terms 
of Communion of this church ; that this position of practical 
political dissent is not maintained in either the Testimony or 
Terms ot Communion, and this being true they dissented 
from its being required as a basis of union with the General 
Synod of the Eeformed Presbyterian church. 

The Platform framed at the East End in the second plank 
of it was intended to set forth the true views of these brethren 
with regard to that subject and to do that in explanation of r 
and to modify the false interpretations of their deliverance at 
Synod, and perhaps other utterances which they had made 
on the floor of Synod with reference to our terms of com- 
munion. 

Now what I proposed to say was that if that is the connec- 
tion between these two things, and it cannot be doubted that 
the East End plank must refer to that which most needed ex- 
planation and about which misunderstanding had arisen ; but 
that it cannot be put in contradiction in its intepretation with 
the plain meaning of the language of their dissent, and hence 
that it cannot mean otherwise then they meant then,— that 
this position of practical political dissent is outside the primary 
standards of this church. 

Brother Eeed, as we have said, proposed a different inter- 



416 



STENOGRAPHIC REPORT. 



pretation, saying that he regarded it as an ultra conservative 
utterance, and as having reference to the departure of the 
church from her position by the act of 1889 authorizing the 
voting on Amendments. Now I want to put (as an addition 
to what I have said) over against this the interpretation of this 
same article made by another ver} r honored member of the 
East End conference, and one certainly qualitied in every way 
to speak for them as to what they actually meant by this 
plank. I read to you from the open letter of Dr. J. K. Mc- 
Clurkin with reference to the meaning of this plank, and I 
ask your careful attention to it. 

Kev. J. S. T. MILLIGAN: I claim that is new testimony 
and it does not come in. 

The MODERATOR : It is not new matter. 

Rev. J. S. T. MILLIGAX: It is new testimony. 

The MODERATOR: The point before the Court is the 
meaning of the East End Platform. The speaker is in order. 

Dr. MCALLISTER : I wish to state, Mr. Moderator, that 
certain things were met byway of rebuttal and argued; we 
are simply meeting what was brought forward to have its 
bearing upon the mind of this Court. 

Rev. J. S. T. MILLIGLAN": J$6 testimony should be pro- 
duced here that was not before Presbytery on either side ; 
that is my point. This certainly is testimony that was not 
before Presbytery, and therefore cannot be used in vindication 
of Presbytery. 

The MODERATOR : According to that there would have 
been an immense amount of argument ruled out. 

Dr. GEORGE : I would like to vindicate myself and show 
that Pittsburgh Presbytery did not put a false interpretation 
on this Platform when they were not willing to accept this as 
the brethren would wish. • 

Mr. D. TORREISTS: Aside from the reasons that have been 
advanced it does seem to me that none of the young men on 
trial have any right to have impugned to them any interpre- 
tation made by Dr. McClurkin. 

Dr. GEORGE: I donH presume that — 

Mr. TORREXS : And as I understand Dr. George is trying 
to prove by this that Mr. Reed's explanation is not correct. 
Dr. McClurkin can't prove anything that is in Mr. Reed's 
mind and therefore I contend that this is not in order at this 
time. 

The MODERATOR : The speaker will proceed. 

Dr. GEORGE : This is a letter from Dr. McClurkin and it 
is an interpretation of this plank which is before us. "My 
action — referring to his withdrawal from the church — is the 
outgrowth of candid throughful investigation of the attitude 
of the church towards the government of our country, and of 
the illusive distinctions by which this attitude has of late 
been defended. After searching the constitutional history of 



TUESDAY, JUNE 9. 



417 



the United States, after studying her Christian laws, religious 
customs and Supreme Court interpretations, realizing too that 
the ballot box is the place where Christian conviction must 
be expressed if righteous laws are to send their life giving 
influences throughout our Republic, I have been forced to the 
conclusion that the individual conscience of the American 
citizen should be allowed to decide as to the duty of casting a 
ballot for righteous rulers." 

Rev. H. W. REED : Has Mr. George a right to bring in the 
the open letter of Dr. McClurkin when we are in a position 
not to be able to answer that point? Is not that new matter? 

The MODERATOR : This is brought in reply to what has 
already been said. 

Rev. H. W. REED : He is alluding to opinions which we 
have not alluded to and which we do not hold. 

Rev. J. C. SMITH: I want to be perfectly fair. What Dr. 
George has read is Dr. McClurkin's belief, it is not his inter- 
pretation of the Platform. 

Dr. GEORGE : Wait till I come to that. 

Rev. J. S. T. MILLIGAIST : It is testimony, but it is inad- 
missible. 

The MODERATOR : Let the Moderator explain the ground 
of his decision. When Mr. Reed was on the floor he produced 
argument and testimony with regard to his interpretation of 
that plank which was not before Presbytery. His argument 
was not before Presbytery on the interpretation of the second 
plank of the East End Platform. He was not called to order. 
This is a reply to that statement and argument of Mr. Reed, 
It is not therefore new matter. 

Rev. H. W. REED : I wish to say — 

The MODERATOR : If there is anything more to be said it 
must be said under appeal. It is not a debatable point, and 
the Moderator's decision has been given. 

Rev. H. W. REED : I have proof to show that this is not Dr. 
McClurkin's interpretation. 

Dr. GEORGE (reads) : "Further, as I search the Scriptures 
for the foundation of the Christian church and study the 
Bible warrants for her laws and discipline ; when I see the 
simplicity of the faith as it is in Jesus, and remember that the 
church is the great remedial agency by which, according to 
Christ's appointment, fallen humanity is to be uplifted, and 
within which benighted humanity is to be enlightened, I am 
again forced to the conclusion that we are without a Scriptu- 
ral basis authorizing us to exclude from the sealing ordinan- 
ces of the church one who feels that duty calls him to cast a 
ballot, it may be, for an exemplary Christian. * * * Again, 
last July some brethren, myself among the number, desirous 
of correcting the misrepresentations that had grown out of the 
controversy at Synod, held a meeting, commonly known as 
the East End conference, and placed directly before the 



418 



STENOGEAPHIC REPORT. 



church a short and simple statement of our views. It was an 
earnest meeting of prayer. There was nothing secret. We 
published our views openly to the world. Historical investi- 
gations had confirmed the faith of a goodly number in the 
belief that the early history of the Covenanters in America 
gives no warrant for the exclusive acts of Synod on the voting 
question, and that it was the purpose of the fathers, who led 
the early church in this land, to receive members upon their 
acceptance of the Testimony and Terms of Communion. This- 
is the thought presented in the following statement of the 
conference, and upon which Pittsburgh Presbytery has waged 
an unremitting war : 'Persons who make a credible profession 
of Christ should be received into church membership on the 
acceptance of our Testimony and Terms of Communion, 
without binding them to our explanation in the matter of 
political dissent and other questions.' " 

This letter is signed by Prof. McClurkin. Our brother says 
they have evidence to show that this is not his interpretation 
of the East End Platform ; but I submit that here is a plain 
statement with his interpretation with reference to that plank r 
and upon that Pittsburgh Presbytery is waging this war. 

Now, my Brethren, I submit that the connection is com- 
plete between these two things, and that the attempt of our 
friends to furnish us with another interpretation of this plank 
of the Platform is not consistent, at least with the interpreta- 
tion of so able a man and so sincere a man as Prof. McClur- 
kin. And I am willing to accept the statement of this brother 
with reference to the meaning of that plank. And what I 
want to say is, in view of the fact that this interpretation is 
given by one of the most learned and intelligent of them- 
selves that there can be no reflection put upon the leaders of 
Pittsburgh Presbytery, or the church in the neighborhood of 
where this deliverance was put out, for they have interpreted 
the language of that Platform to mean that there was a pur- 
pose to secure the departure of the church from her past 
position of practical political dissent. That is my point: 
that there can be no reflection upon Pittsburgh Presbytery 
of first having given forth this slander upon these brethren 
when she passed a resolution declaring her conviction 
that this plank is subversive of the fundamental principle of 
this church as well as of the Scripture. 

Now I have one more point to which I wish to allude, and 
that is the assertion made by my brother, the Eev. E. M. Mil- 
ligan, that, although these things may be true, they are mere 
matters of opinion, and that with opinions you have nothing 
to do; that if he were a member of a human organization or 
institution and changed his views from the basis upon which 
the organization was founded, that it might become his duty 
to withdraw from it on account of the departure from that; 
but that the church is a divine institution, and hecce, as a 



TUESDAY, JUNE 9. 



member of that divine institution, his opinions on these sub- 
jects are between him and God, and the church has nothing 
whatever to do with them. If he would assert that with re- 
gard to private opinions I might admit it; but I submit to 
you, Brethren, that even that may be questioned in regard to 
a minister of Jesus Christ. The church makes some inquiry 
as to a man's opinions, both public and private, in inducting 
him into the office of minister ; and it is a question how far a 
man's private opinions, when he has accepted a public and 
official trust, are to be his own exclusively, and no matter of. 
concern to the church ; because a man's private opinions must 
determine his public testimony. And I think that avowal is 
a strange one. But what I assert is, that opinions are not 
private when they have been promulgated, and that when 
they have been promulgated the church has to do with them, 
and they can no longer be private opinions but by some dis-' 
avowal of their public utterance. 

And I want to say again, that because the church is a 
divine institution, she must deal with the opinions of those 
whom she sends forth as ministers of Jesus Christ to declare 
his testimony. My Brethren, religion is a revelation from 
heaven. Jesus Christ has revealed the truth. Paul did not 
consider himself a leader of thought. He did not consider 
himself as a framer of opinions. He considered himself a 
messenger of God; he said, If any man preach any other 
gospel than he had preached, any other than that which he 
had received from Jesus Christ, let him be cursed. Why ? Be- 
cause he differed from Paul in an opinion? No; but because 
he did not receive and preach the gospel that Paul received 
as a revelation from heaven ; and when Paul came to die and 
looked up into the face of his coming Lord, he could say, "I 
have fought a good fight; I have finished my course; I hav« 
kept the faith;" he did not mean that he continued to believe 
in Jesus Christ, but he meant that he had been true to the 
revelation that Christ gave to him as a minister to declare, 
and that he had proclaimed it. It is the duty and the obli- 
gation of the church to see that the ministers of Jesus Christ 
are true to the system of truth that Christ has revealed, and 
no man can assert that, as a minister of the gospel of Christ, 
his opinions are no concern of church courts, and especially 
when they have proclaimed them. The church is the pillar 
and ground of the truth. 

Fathers and Brethren, I do not wish now to prolong the 
discussion of this subject. I desire to call your attention to a 
few points in closing my remarks. 

There is a complaint lodged against Pittsburgh Presbytery 
for injustice and wrong for her method of procedure in this 
case. And as I understand, there is a complaint of such in- 
justice and wrong as involves her right to sit upon a decision 
of her own case. It is alleged that there has been that in her 



420 



STENOGRAPHIC REPORT. 



procedure that disqualifies her to judge righteously in this 
case until her brethren have passed upon it. 

I wish to call attention to. this : I stated a little while ago 
that a large amount of what you have heard had no reference 
whatever to any act of Presbytery, and this point was made, 
in the first place, that Presbytery was compelled to act. I 
pointed out that there were two reasons why Presbytery was 
compelled to act. 1st. We were under the direction of Synod 
with reference to arresting the discussion of certain principles 
that had been discussed long enough according to the judg- 
ment of this Court last year. 2nd. That the matter was 
brought before the Presbytery by a large number of memo- 
rials of such a character and presenting such weighty consid- 
erations that the Presbytery, out of respect to its sessions and 
its people, and to the eldership who had taken action in the 
matter, was constrained to act. 

Presbytery found just the condition of things which is set 
out in the report of the Committee on Discipline, that inquiry 
should be made and misrepresentations corrected if wrong 
had been done, and confidence restored; if otherwise, that 
the fault should be removed. The Presbytery was constrained 
to act. There was no injustice or wrong in the Presbytery 
moving under such circumstances. We have endeavored to 
make clear to you that the Presbytery exhausted all her re- 
sources to secure a settlement without trial; that she had her 
seasons of reverent and devout prayer; that she gave the op- 
portunity to the brethren, which was accepted, to make 
candid and frank statements as to their views that had been 
called in question by the church ; that she followed this by a 
series of papers that were submitted by different members of 
the Court — Drs. McAllister, Willson and Sproull, all making 
propositions, — which were not found to be agreeable to all 
parties; that she did not yield at that point for a trial, but 
appointed her Judicial Committee, and charged them to 
follow up the matter, seeking reconciliation, that if possible 
this might be found ; and that she came together again at the 
second meeting for the purpose of passing upon this result. 
The Presbytery exhausted her resources in the direction of 
seeking the removal of this difficulty without the trial ; and 
as we think fulfilled in full measure, the Scriptural injunction 
as to seeking reconciliation. 

The next point is that she went to the very uttermost 
bounds in the terms she offered. I want to revive your minds 
again as to this : that the Presbytery went just as far as she 
could in proposals of settlement to these young brethren; 
that she went so far as to propose that they should be per- 
mitted to hold their places on an engagement not to propa- - 
gate the views that were unscriptural. She could not compel 
them to disavow them, because they held them consci- 
entiously, but that they agree not to propagate them. Our 



TUESDAY, JUNE 9. 



421 



brother, the Rev. Mr. Reed, stated to you yesterday that one 
of his surprises, when he heard the basis of agreement which 
Presbytery's Committee had formulated itself, was that it 
was more liberal, than he had thought possible; that indeed, 
he had come prepared to accept something that was more 
conservative than the basis which this Judicial Committee 
prepared with reference to these brethren. I have this to say : 
That that basis in that form in which it seemed to him to be 
more liberal than one he was willing to accept, was offered to 
him with two additions : the first was a declaration that he 
withdrew from the organization formed at the East End, and 
the second, that he express regret for his connection with 
that Meeting. Now I want you to bear in mind that Brother 
Reed was one of those who told you that he understood that 
an organization was formed, that he understood a motion 
passed for such an organization; and that the objection 
which has been made by some that they could not accept that 
because they did not think there was an organization, did not 
hinder Brother Reed from accepting it, and that if he had 
believed, as he said he did, that he had entered into an or- 
ganization, on the principles of that basis, at that time, he 
ought to have been able to have expressed regret for such an 
organization formed in such a way. At least, it would seem 
so to us. The idea I want to present is, that the Presbytery 
went to the very uttermost, and I think went beyond what 
many of you think was right, in the proposal she made to 
them. And the thought I wish to get into your mind is, that 
on this question of having done injustice and wrong, there 
was no place for it at this point. She has been compelled to 
act. She had exhausted her resources in seeking to avoid a 
trial. She had proffered the very uttermost that could be 
offered, in order to have these men retained to the church. 

The next point is that the trial was conducted in a brotherly 
and fraternal spirit. I am very glad that my brother Mr. 
Milligan introduced this morning the letter writfr n to him by 
me when I was assisting Brother Carlisle at his communion. 
Now with the difficulty that has been brought before you, I 
left Presbytery to go to Brother Carlisle's communion. The 
anxiety about these cases, and the concern for these brethren 
was so heavy on my heart that in the midst of the communion 
season I wrote, what I submit to you was a loving letter, in 
the spirit of true fraternity to my brother J. R. J. Milligan; 
and it might seem to some of the young brethren as they lis- 
tened to the extract from it that 1 was less concerned about 
them than I was about him. I wish simply to refer to this: 
brother J. R. J. Milligan made statements on the floor of 
Presbytery. Those statements were of a character which led 
a good many to feel that he had more modified views than 
had been uttered by the others, and perhaps a different course 
might prevail with regard to him. But another reason was 



422 



STENOGRAPHIC REPORT. 



this : That Brother Milligan and I roomed in the same house 
a fewyears ago during one winter, and that we were on the 
most intimate terms, talking with each other frequently about 
the church's work and her prospects ; and there had grown 
an attachment between us personally. And I can say to you, 
Brethren, that, as I wrote that letter to him from Kewburgh, 
I did hope he would be preserved to the church. It was a 
candid letter from a brother whose heart was concerned for a 
dear brother, and who did not want him to go away. 

But I want to say that that same spirit prevailed with ref- 
erence to all, and was manifested to all. The testimony from 
the young men themselves on the floor of our Court was that 
the prosecutors tried them with fairness. And I cannot 
refrain from reading you a short extract (I could read many 
■of them) in reference to the spirit in which this trial was 
brought to a conclusion. It appeared in the Pittsburgh Dis- 
patch the morning after the trial. 

I want to say that while there has been a good deal of dis- 
credit cast upon the reporters for the press, yet they did 
desire to use the Pittsburgh Presbytery and this Court fairly. 
Their sympathies were with the young men, but they did not 
hesitate to testify to the character of the proceedings of our 
Presbytery. I only wait to read this one to show you how it 
presented itself to the eyes of outsiders who had no concern 
in the case except as they looked on : " While it is more than 
probable that the trouble in the K. P. church, which has 
filled Wilkinsburg from center to circumference with ortho- 
doxy this week, cannot be covered by all the ecclesiastical 
court plaster in the world, and while to outsiders, especially 
to worldlings, the difference may not seem much more im^ 
portant than that between tvveedle-dum and tweedle-dee, yet 
there is a grandeur of conviction about the struggle that com- 
mands respect, if not admiration. When strong men lose 
themselves so far as to shed tears over the dissolution of rel- 
igious relations, it argues an intensity of belief that must 
carry with it conviction, unless base motives are imputed, and 
any one who has made a few hours' study of the Wilkinsburg 
gathering will not impute them to all of either party." 

Now I submit that to you. I could enumerate a number of 
others; here is one, u in sorrow not in anger," and it speaks 
just in the same way. This must show you that there was no 
spirit of injustice and wrong in our hearts towards these 
brethren in the midst of these trials. 

I have now tried to trace this matter through. I cannot 
detect, for myself, the point at which the imputation of that 
kind of wrong and injustice that disqualifies the court to be a 
righteous judge in the case, is to be seen. It certainly did not 
manifest itself on the outside. 

I want to call attention before I sit down to a fact on this 
question of injustice and wrong, and it refers to the method 



TUESDAY, JUNE 9. 



423 



and manner of proceeding to the vote. As I understand it, 
it does not include another question that is raised here as to 
the severity of the sentence ; and for the reason that, it seems 
to me, it is not connected with the question of injustice and 
wrong as to the spirit of the trial. I find a very tine article 
here from the pen of my father and brother, Dr. J. C. K. Mil- 
ligan, on this subject, and I think I am in order in submitting 
it, and I will read the last paragraph : "Thus by a fair inter- 
pretation of the spirit of the rule the members of the lower 
court are entitled to exercise their fall right as members of 
the higher unless where the decision involves the censure of 
the lower judicatory for injustice and wrong." That is, unless 
we are subject for cengure for the injustice and wrong we 
have done. "-There are two cases in which this exclusion 
occurs : 1st. Where there is a formal complaint made against 
the inferior judicatory, charging it with criminal wrong 
doing. 2nd. Where in an appeal there is a reason given that 
charges the court appealed from with such criminal wrong. 
In the first case the lower court is the party on trial, and has 
no more right to sit as a judge than the other party would 
have. The second case does not arise by any and every vague 
and indefinite charge of "injustice and wrong, "but to consti- 
tute it there must be a definite wrong specified which is cap- 
able of proof and relevant to censure. As a preliminary to 
the hearing of an appeal containing such charges of wrong, 
and as an essential prerequisite to the exclusion of the mem- 
bers of the lower court from its consideration, the relevancy 
of the charges to censure should be determined, and the abil- 
ity and readiness of the appellant to sustain them by evidence 
should be ascertained. If the charges are not relevant to 
censure if proven, or if proof be not forthcoming, it becomes 
an ordinary case of appeal, and the members of the Court ap- 
pealed from are entitled to act in the higher court without 
question." 

Kow, my Brethren, I do understand that the complaints 
brought to you in this Court involve charges of injustice and 
wrong, in the first place of a kind which we ought, without 
discussion, to submit to our brethren. But the point I wish 
to make is that that does not carry with it the question that 
arises in some of your minds, which my brother will discuss, 
as to the degree of censure. And the appeal I want to leave 
with you is this : This Court of Christ's house which I am 
seeking to defend has acted in this difficult and arduous case, 
surrounded as it has been with most serious difficulties, has 
been regarded as having been guilty of injustice and wrong 
of a kind that indicated its unfitness to deal with the question 
before it, and it is here seeking to defend itself from that 
charge. 

Dear Brethren, you know that on your table are memorials 
sent up from different parts of the church which indicate that 



424 



STENOGRAPHIC REPORT. 



they have reached the conclusion that we are guilty of such 
injustice and wrong that the decision should be set aside. I 
want to submit to you that there are some facts known to you 
now that were not known to you when you came here, and 
that were probably not known to those who sent their memo- 
rials here, which, if they had known them as you know them, 
would have modified the judgment which they have ex- 
pressed. For instance, one is this matter about the Committee 
or the Commission. A little circumstance will illustrate what 
I mean. In the trial of this case, when a vote was being 
taken, our brother, the Rev. Mr. Crowe, who is not in Court 
this afternoon (but others will know I state it accurately), in 
giving the reason for his vote said that he voted not to sustain 
the charge because Presbytery had broken faith with the 
young men in that they had set aside a settlement made with 
a commission. And when it came to my turn, and I was 
called upon, I stated that the reason given by my brother Mr. 
Crowe was based upon a mistake, that there was no commis- 
sion, and that Presbytery had no faith to break. That was a 
revelation to Mr. Crowe, and as soon as the vote was finished. 
Mr. Crowe arose in his place and said, "I see that I cast my 
vote under a misapprehension, and therefore I ask leave to 
change it to a vote sustaining the libel." 

Now it was the revelation to him of that fact upon which 
the decision turned with him. Some have charged him 
severely for his changing his vote ; but I submit to you that 
he gave a substantial reason for it, and when he was con- 
vinced that faith was not broken he was constrained to cast 
his vote with Presbytery. So 1 say that while there was some 
feeling in our •hearts while we listened to these memorials, 
some of which appealed to this Court in passing upon the 
case to express the disapproval felt by the people of our 
course, I felt the time would come when I could say, as I say 
now, that these are facts which have been established before 
you. There was no such basis of agreement to which the 
Presbytery was bound, and in which it broke faith ; there was 
no such commission to make a basis of agreement, and hence 
every such deliverance, based on the thought of broken faith 
by Presbytery must be or should be revoked. That surely is 
fair among brethren. 

I want to say one thing more. In the progress of this trial 
my brother J. R. J. Milligan said this: "I know that this 
Synod is largely conservative, and that there may be those 
here who will feel that they are constrained to vote for pre- 
serving a principle, although they may not feel that Presby- 
tery has done altogether right, yet they will be likely to cast 
their vote to sustain Presbytery because they will think that 
a principle is involved." And he appealed to you that that 
was not the proper thing to do, because a question of injustice 



TUESDAY, JUNE 9. 



425 



and wrong cannot be settled in that way, but must be settled 
by your fair vote. 

You will bear me testimony, dear Brethren, that in that 
hour when I stood before you, with the consciousness of hav- 
ing listened for days to the appeals on the other side, and to 
their representations, — and when as I rose I met faces that I 
did meet, that were full of anxiety, some of them, and some 
full of disapproval, — that I had the honor to say, and to sec- 
ond, what my brother J. R. J. Milligan had said. I join with 
him in that appeal, that they could not and should not at the 
very beginning of the trial allow themselves to be influenced 
by their conviction of principle, or to disregard the claims of 
these young men, that justice and righteousness should be 
done. I submit this case to you, dear Brethren, in the con- 
scious righteousness of the course pursued by Pittsburgh 
Presbytery, and in the consciousness of integrity. 

Now I want to say another thing. There was another ap- 
peal that might have been made by my brother Mr. Milligan 
that was not made, and that is, that there are a number of the 
members of this Court having sons here, that they had nephews 
here, and that a father's heart was burning for the defence 
of his children. And you will remember that Mr. Milligan 
might have added to his appeal that, as you should not be 
controlled by your principles to vote for the Presbytery, that 
neither should you allow your feelings to weigh in casting 
your vote with your children, if you are satisfied the Presby- 
tery has not done them wrong, and I believe that you are. 
I would join with him in that appeal. In making it I am not 
going to present it as a reason why any one should not sit in 
the case. I want every one of you to sit. But I present it to 
you as fair and honest, that I should say to you: you shall 
not be influenced by these feelings of kinship to say in your 
ballot, and in your vote, that you believe this Presbytery to 
be guilty of injustice and wrong to your children. I insist 
upon that in behalf of the Court of Christ's house that has 
been held before the public, the unbelieving world, and the 
Christian world, as having been guilty of a course that has 
made the Christian world stand aghast. 

We have submitted to you the course of its procedure. I 
have asked from you what I think we ought to have, a unani- 
mous vote of this Synod, of all members of it, that having 
looked these things through, whatever fault they may find 
with the course of one individual or another, whatever reflec- 
tions they may cast upon this member or another as to any- 
thing they have done through any motive of right or wrong, 
that as far as Presbytery is concerned it has acted in dignity 
and integrity. I think it has stood conscientiously for the 
defence of our church against what was believed to be a 
perilous onslaught, endangering its life, and likely to lead it 
away from its fidelity, from Jesus Christ, her King and Lord. 



426 



STENOGRAPHIC REPORT. 



My Brethren, it is with implicit confidence I submit this 
case to your judgment. I do not believe you shall find in- 
justice or wrong at any point in the course of procedure. I 
only wait to say this : that I left out some things to which I 
should have alluded; but I ask you, as a brother, if a doubt 
remains in the mind of any of you, that in your questions you 
will give us the benefit of the doubt, or the privilege of solv- 
ing that doubt; and if we shall not, you should pronounce 
judgment upon us according to your sense of right, and we 
shall accept it. 

The MODEKATOR: Dr. David McAllister will also speak 
on behalf of Pittsburgh Presbytery. 

Dr. DAVID MCALLISTER: Mr. Moderator, Fathers and 
Brethren : I have already promised you that I shall not detain 
you for any great length of time this afternoon, and I shall 
keep my promise. T pass by all matters that seem to be im- 
material, although a number of them, if you were not so 
weary, would be worthy of some attention; and I shall take 
up the main points that bear, in the first place, upon the 
complaint of injustice and wrong, and then what bears 
directly upon the appeals from the sentence of the Court, and 
then finally the few important points that remain to be 
noticed, which bear upon the appeal from the sentence of sus- 
pension. 

Let me, in the first place, notice the demand of Mr. Milli- 
gan to have his case considered by itself, because he had 
maintained a separate and independent stand. Here again I 
must just refer to facts, and I wish to make a somewhat fuller 
presentation of them in order that we may see whether this 
is a ground that you should recognize in justice and right. 

Referring to these reasons of dissent that have been read in 
your hearing, I notice the name of J. R. J. Milligan to them. 
His name is connected with the names of the others, who are 
also associated with the East End Meeting and the East End 
Platform, so that we had, both in this Platform of which I 
have here a copy of the original, and in this dissent of Mr. 
Milligan with the others, his own acknowledgment before the 
Presbytery that he was at that Meeting, his own acknowledg- 
ment of approval of the Platform, and his own signature 
given to these reasons of dissent, found in the Minutes of the 
last meeting of Synod. 

This being the connection then, it is simply a matter of 
justice that where a man has put himself in these associa- 
tions, and has held to them, he shall be judged in connection 
therewith. It is of his own choice he puts himself in their 
company; he stands on the same platform, and he ought 
therefore in justice and in right to stand with the others 
when they a*re tried on the same charges and the same prin- 
ciples to which he himself has given his own name and his 
own adherence. 



TUESDAY, JUNE 9. 



427 



Let me notice once more the efforts in Presbytery at a set- 
tlement. It has been stated here that objections to the basis 
were offered in Presbytery, that one was offered by Dr. 
♦Sproull, another was offered by myself. The matter is down 
upon the record, so that the exact words can be given if any- 
body is disposed to have them, but the members of the Court 
will remember the statement. 

Now let me give the facts a little more fully, because when 
we have this attempted rejoinder, in order to meet the re- 
joinder it makes it necessary to bring out the facts a little 
more fully. The facts are these : We had spent a great deal 
of time, and we were just about at the poiut where it seemed 
nothing could be done, and as Moderator I asked one of the 
members to take the chair while I offered the first basis which 
I had written out. I did that out of kindness of heart and 
a sincere and earnest desire to avoid proceeding to trial. I 
offered that basis from the very motive from which Dr. 
Sproull and Prof. Willson offered theirs. 

Now it was stated here in connection with this that any one 
of these would have been acceptable. That was stated, and it 
has been taken down verbatim. Yet immediately after that 
we meet with this most extraordinary statement. After it had 
been atfirmed that any one of these would have been accept- 
able, it was stated that the one that was proposed by the 
Moderator of Presbytery was one that no man outside of the 
church of Rome could sign. I simply leave those two state- 
ments to be put together by your own mind. 

I simply refer to this that you may see that what has been 
stated by my brother Dr. George, and proven as it seems to 
me with the strongest kind of evidence, that every member of 
that Presbytery, the officers as well as the members of it who 
were upon the floor, were all anxious to keep these brethren 
within the church, and to offer any basis that would maintain 
the integrity of the church, that would maintain her loyalty 
to the cause of the church and the cause of Christianity, if we 
could possibly devise any such basis which these young 
brethren would accept. 

Eev. E. M. MILLIGAN : I call for the reading of that plain 
statement which I made, that any of these bases would have 
been acceptable, and then my next statement that no man 
outside of the church of Rome could sign it. 

Dr. MCALLISTER : The stenographer will read it. 

(The stenographer arose and stated that he did not have 
with him in the court the notes of Mr. Milligan's speech of 
the previous day.) 

Dr. McALL.STER: The statement will be given. It was 
taken down verbatim, and I thought the stenographer who is 
taking the report of this discussion had the notes here with 
him. I will pass on. In the meantime that can be furnished 



428 



STENOGRAPHIC REPORT. 



for this Court. It is a statement that I myself noted, and have 
it in my own notes just as it was made. 

I pass on to what was charged in reference to obtaining the 
statements of the young men under promise and threat. And 
I am very glad we have the statement made that Dr. Sproull 
manifested fairness all through the whole proceedings. Dr. 
Sproull was one of those who recommended this course in the 
spirit of fairness which has already been attributed to him. 
Dr. George said that this was an opportunity offered to the 
young men to remove the trouble without any further inves- 
tigation. According to these views which have already been 
brought before you, and particularly in reference to Dr. 
Sproull, there could have been, if there were this spirit of 
fairness and desire to do what was right, no such base purpose 
as trying to get from these young men, under promise, or 
command, or threat, something that would be used against 
them. It was simply this : An earnest effort to lead them, if 
it were possible, to such a statement on their part as would 
satisfy the Presbytery that there was no need of going for- 
ward for the maintenance of the principles of the church. 
But alas, here came the most unfortunate thing. In these 
statements that were made, not only were the principles in 
these reasons of dissent, which have already been read, and 
the East End Platform, brought out again, but the statements 
were made stronger, and in a number of instances amplified. 
And it was stated on the floor of Synod, "We would attend 
the East End Meeting again to-morrow; we would stand by 
the principles of it again." 

I can only give you in this brief way something of an idea 
of just what utterances were made in the maintenance of the 
position; and hence, with this clear statement made before 
the Presbytery, under no promise and under no threat, but as 
a voluntary, full, frank statement, the Presbytery having the 
evidence, it conforms to the practice of the law of the church 
of Scotland that I have already quoted in your hearing, and 
that I do not need to refer to here, excepting as there may be 
a little fog in your minds from what has been said in refer- 
ence to the clause about this being "judicial," and also in ref- 
erence to what was quoted from Chambers' Encyclopedia 
about the declaration that was made by any one that was 
under trial. 

Now the analogy there does not hold in this respect : you 
do not have a man charged with murder who comes to make 
a confession of his crime, and to be dealt with on that con- 
fession of crime. The judge warns such a man: "The magis- 
trate will give due warning that whatever he may say in 
crimination of himself will be used against him." 

In the case before Presbytery there was the attempt at rec- 
onciliation. In that attempt at reconciliation, which did not 
bring the persons, it is true, forward in judicial form, the tes- 



TUESDAY, JUNE 9. 



429 



timony was brought out clearly, in the strongest and most 
emphatic terms, volunteered by the men themselves, the 
Court being the witness, hearing the testimony, putting the 
fact upon the record as that fact has been put upon record, 
and we have had it read here, in that Minute these seven 
men are named, and it is said in the record that every one of 
these men attempted a defence of his connection with the 
East End Meeting and East End Platform; or, I believe the 
exact word is, attempted a justification of his connection with 
the East End Meeting and East End Platform. 

Eev. J. S. T. MILLIGrAN : I would call for the reading of 
that Minute. 

Dr. McALLISTER : We shall have the Minute read. 
(The clerk read as follows.) 

"Item number two was adopted. Opportunity was given to 
brethren to explain their position and connection with the 
matters complained of. Statements were volunteered by 
Revs. J. E. J. Milligan, H. W. Reed, E. M. Milligan, A. W. 
McClurkin, O. B. Milligan, W. L. U. Samson, H. W. Temple, 
all of whom attempted a defence of their connection with the 
adoption and publication of the Platform referred to in the 
memorial." 

Dr. MCALLISTER: That is the official Minute, and it 
names every one of these men, as you will notice, in connec- 
tion with their volunteering to defend their connection with 
the adoption and publication of the East End Platform. 

Rev. J. R. J. MILLIGAN : It was not "justification." 

Dr. MCALLISTER : Very well; it was an attempt to defend 
their connection with it; and whether defence does not in- 
volve justification, I shall submit to the Court that they may 
determine for themselves. If I defend myself against certain 
charges, I certainly try to justify myself in the course I have 
pursued. 

Now I pass on from this to Mr. Milligan's own statement, 
as made before this Synod. And what has Mr. Milligan 
stated? He has stated that he could not conscientiously en- 
force the law and discipline of the church in excluding from 
membership or keeping out from membership any one who 
would vote for an officer to administer the government? Why? 
Because he thought that the church had abandoned her 
principles in that she permitted her members to vote for pro- 
hibitory amendments. He has stated that in your hearing. 
Thaf is the evidence that is before you, and that is exactly 
the same evidence that was before Pittsburgh Presbytery, 
that he could not conscientiously administer the law and dis- 
cipline of the church. Yet, as you have already brought out 
before you, he was willing to sign an agreement that he 
would do so. That is the second statement or declaration of 
the basis of agreement, and that basis came before Presbytery 
signed by every man 



430 



STENOGRAPHIC REPORT. 



Dr. GEOKGE : Not signed. 

Dr. MCALLISTER : I think it was. I will ask the clerk of 
the Presbytery if the document submitted to him was not 
signed? Is Mr. Laird here? 

Dr. GEORGE: I beg your pardon, I thought it was the 
Committee's basis you were referring to. 

Rev. W. R. LAIRD : They submitted a basis. 

Dr. MCALLISTER : And did not they agree to carry out 
the law of the church? 

Rev. W. R. LAIRD : That was the idea. 

Rev. J. R. J. MILLIGAN : That was signed by five. 

Dr. MCALLISTER: I understood that we had put into the 
hands of the members of this Court the same statement, which 
includes Rev. J. R. J. Milligan. 

Rev. J. R. J. MILLIGAN: No, I did not sign it. And 
further, when the speaker quotes that plank in the Platform 
I ask him to quote it all. It says, '-So long as I am a member 
of the Reformed Presbyterian church. 1 ' 

Dr. MCALLISTER: I will ask for the reading of that 
paper. 

Dr. GEORGE : The last clause attached to it. 
Dr. MCALLISTER: We will just have the whole thing 
read. 

The clerk then read the statement as follows: "We disavow 
the East End Meeting as a bond of union within the Reformed 
Presbyterian church, and as other than an expression of 
individual opinion. 2. We engage to abide by the existing 
laws of this church as to voting at civil elections and holding 
office, and to carry them out in the exercise of our office. 3. 
We engage not to propagate contrary views to the above while 
holding the position of ministers of the Reformed Presbyterian 
church." 

Dr. MCALLISTER : Now, Mr. Moderator, notice the second 
statement in that. It is an engagement on the part of these 
men, and although it was not signed it was agreed to. They 
maintained that they had come beyond the years when they 
should sign anything in order that it should be binding, and 
that their word was just as good as their signature. They 
agreed that they would carry out the existing laws of the 
church in the exercise of their office. And yet we are here 
informed that the Rev. J. R. J. Milligan could not consci- 
entiously do that very thing which he agreed before the 
Judicial Committee he was ready to do, and ready to bind him- 
self to do ! That is the point I wish to make : that here we have 
a declaration that he could not conscientiously do it, and there 
we have the agreement which he himself gave his assent to, 
voluntarily, that he would do the thing that he now says he 
could not conscientiously do. 

I wish, still further, to give an illustration here to show you 
the absurdity of this. Admit now that the action of Synod m 



TUESDAY, JUNE 9. 



431 



1889 was contrary to the principles of the church. You know 
that I believe it was in perfect harmony with true Cove- 
nanterism. How could that inconsistency on the part of 
Synod justify a further inconsistency? How could that action 
of the Superior Court, or the Supreme Court, of the church y 
justify an inferior Court in any course that would be contrary, 
without any question by anybody — a course in contravention 
of the principles of the church, according to the admission of 
these persons themselves. 

Let me illustrate it in this way : suppose that the Superior 
Court in civil matters had said that a citizen of the country 
might be guilty of lying, and the Court would pay no atten- 
tion to it. Here is a certain person, and proof might be ad- 
duced that he had been guilty of lying. The Superior Court 
says, "We will pay no attention to it." Now the inferior 
Court has brought before it a man guilty of perjury, — not 
only guilty of lying but also of taking a false oath; and the 
inferior Court says, kk Because the Superior Court has been so- 
inconsis ent that it would not deal with a man for lying, 
therefore we won't deal with this man for perjury." That 
I submit, Fathers and Brethren, is precisely an analogous 
case. 

Admit that there has been a wrong in the one case, does it 
justify a greater wrong in another case? Or, it may be said it 
is not a greater wrong; we have had it argued that it is just 
the same thing. Well, even admit that. Suppose the Superior 
Court has said it will let a man go who was guilty of perjury, 
Will you then have an inferior Court say, that it must not 
maintain the discipline of the church? Because the higher 
Court has connived at this one wrong; therefore shall the 
lower Court connive also at the same wrong thing? 

If there be justice and right, let justice and right be done. 
No reason that may be given as to any inconsistency that any 
Court may be accused of, is a sufficient ground to keep 
another Court, which is under covenant obligations to do 
what is right, from carrying into operation the will of the 
Head of the church, as it understands that will to be. 

Now, Mr. Moderator, I pass from these considerations to 
the question of the admissibily of the libel. And here I 
might say that whatever strength has been laid out on thi& 
argument on the part of the complainants and appellants, it 
has certainly shown itself here. And I wish to meet every 
point that has been brought out in this connection with the 
utmost frankness. 

Before I pass on, I may say that here is the programme of 
the Convention of Elders, [holding up a copy of the program- 
me which had been handed to him,] and that Mr. Copeland's 
name is there as chairman on that programme. This is the 
official programme. I simply refer to that incidentally, in 
order that the Court may know whether A. B. Copeland was- 



432 



STENOGRAPHIC REPORT. 



there as one who who was voluntarily taking part in the 
exercises and giving his approval. 

As to the admissibillity of the libel, let me give you the 
charge and specifications. The charge is pursuing divisive 
courses. It is clear and definite. Tne specifications under 
that are, attending the East End Meeting, adopting the Plat- 
form, which was there agreed upon, having part in the cir- 
culating of it, and the approval given. All this is given in 
substance. We have this approval. The attendance and the 
approval and the circulation are the main points. These are 
specifications. 

Now, what needed to he proved? What were the facts de- 
manding proof? The facts demanding proof were presence at 
the East End Meeting and approval of its Platform. Then 
the Court itself would have to judge whether such presence, 
approval and support, and circulating the document, or the 
opinions, did tend to divide the church, or did more than 
tend, — whether it not only tended to, but as the process went 
on, did actually cause division in the church. 

It is true that that process is still going on, and that at the 
present time we have a picture of division such as was not 
true in every respect at the time that Presbytery met. But 
there was division already, at that time, and it has been going 
on ever since, and getting worse and worse. There was 
division before the Pittsburgh Presbytery met; and these 
facts of division were made perfectly apparent to the Court. 
There was division in a number of congregations. It was ad- 
mitted then and there that there was division, and admitted 
by these complainants and appellants themselves; and they 
charged the division upon the Elders' Convention. They 
charged the division, to begin with, upon the Elders' Conven- 
tion; and then afterwards, they charged it also upon Presby- 
tery, because of what it had done. 

Now these are the simple facts as to the charges they 
made. And this brings before you the fact that there was 
division, and the question of the Court to determine was, Who 
were the guilty and responsible parties? Who were guilty? 
Now, once more, I say that motives were not impugned. And 
let me bring up an illustration. 

Eev. E. M. MULLIGAN: I would like to call attention to 
the fact here that it was not denied Mr. A. B. Copeland at- 
tended the morning session of the call for the Elders' Conven- 
tion. The only point I asserted was that the name of none of 
my elders was on the call for the Elders' Convention. That 
was the only point I made. I have in my hand the official 
call for the Elders' Convention, and I will now state that any 
one who desires can look at it and see that the name of not 
one of the Parnassus elders is on that call. 

Dr. MCALLISTER: I do not think anybody affirmed that 
their names were on the call. I submitted this to show that 



TUESDAY, JUNE 9. 



433 



he was connected with it, and that his name appears here, 
"A. B. Copeland. Chairman.'' and "John T. Morton, Sec- 
retary " in the programme fcr the proceedings. 

Rev. E. M. MILLIGAX: The point that he was at the 
meeting was never denied. 

Dr. McALLISTEK : Then we have no difference on that 
point. I return to the matter of motives not coming in for 
interpretation. Let me ask the members of the Court to keep 
distinctly in view that the motive which enters into a respon- 
sible and intelligent act is the intention to do a certain thing. 
The certain thing that was done was calling that East End 
Meeting and attending it; adopting a platform, and giving 
expression of approval to the principles of the platform. Xow 
these were done with motives to do these things. As to the 
motive beyond that, we did not undertake to say anything. 

A member of this Court told me about a man in the city of 
Allegheny, if I niay bring this in by way of illustration, who 
gets "drunk as a matter of principle. That is, he thinks that 
two or three times every year he must just drink so much ; 
every year, then, he makes himself beastly drunk; and he 
does* this, according to what he says, for the purpose and 
motive of improving his health. Now. that is his purpose 
and motive. I suppose if he were arrested and brought be- 
fore any of the Courts there would be no question about what 
might have been his motive in the matter as to improving his 
health and so on: but it would appear that as a free and in- 
telligent creature he had obtained whiskey, and had drank 
whiskey, and the effect of his drinking whiskey was preju- 
dicial to the public order and prejudicial to the peace, and 
he would be held responsible, whatever might have been his 
motive, for the effect of his conduct. Although he was seek- 
ing his health, he had become boistorous and disorderly, and 
brought confusion and disturbance into the city, and he 
would be dealt with according to that. 

Now I submit we have here precisely the same principle. 
There were certain things done, intentionally done; but not 
with the purpose of dividing the church or the Presbytery. 
That they did have that effect, whatever the intention of the 
persons themseves may have been, the Presbytery has decided. 
Presbytery has decided that the division was due to the East 
End Meeting, and the approval of its principles. 

I come now to the connection of this fact of organization 
with the libel. Here it has been pleaded that this fact has 
nothing to do with the matter, because it does not enter into the 
libel in so many specific terms. Eemember, now, that the 
charge in the libel is pursuing divisive courses. The speci- 
fications are, the East End Meeting, the principles adopted, 
the approval, and the support given. Now that necessarily 
brings in the nature of the East End Meeting. What kind of 
a meeting was it? How about these principles? What about 



434 



STENOGRAPHIC REPORT. 



the adoption of them? What about the support of them? 
What was the connection? What were the facts in refeience 
to these principles as they were disseminated throughout the 
church? All these are facts that have to be considered; and 
so the question of whether or not that Meeting effected a 
permanent organization comes in. 

Here, again, we admit the doubt that we had withrega dto 
whether there was an organization or not. The steps of 
proof have gone on one by one, until in the most startling 
manner we heard here to-day what I never heard before,, 
(and which is another evidence of the way in which matters 
have been kept secret and under cover.) that this matter was 
brought before the East End Meeting and discussed, and a 
vote taken and carried. Now, Fathers and Brethren. I want 
to give all the facts, and then we will put them together. 

Kev. H. W. REED : That is not exactly correct. 

Dr. MCALLISTER : I will reads his w T ords as they were 
taken down. 

Rev. H. W. EEED ; It was not carried. 

Dr. MCALLISTER : 1 will read his words. Rev. H. W. 
Reed, during his remarks said : 

"JSTow when were called upon in Presbytery to make our 
statements concerning this East End Meeting and the East 
End Platform, I supposed all the time and never doubted for 
a moment that the Presbytery was acting on the ground that 
an organization had been formed. I may be mistaken but that 
was the impression in my own mind. And hence in my 
statement before Presbytery I neither affirmed or denied that 
an organization had been formed.'' It would have been well 
if he had affirmed or denied it then. But now he says this 
morning: 'Tn my statement before Presbytery I neither 
affirmed or denied that an organization had been formed. 
Indeed, I never referred to it at all ; and whatever inference 
may have been taken from it, the impression in my own mind 
was that there was no need of making a statement concerning 
it. I then felt that an organization had been formed." He 
believed it, but he did not tell us so. k 'I believe I did say 
in Presbytery that I thought an organization had been 
formed." 

He now tells us he thought then that there was an organi- 
zation formed. And yet he says just above, 4, never doubted 
for a moment that the Presbytery was acting on the ground 
that an organization had been formed.'' Now, let us go a 
little further: 'T believe I said likewise in Presbytery that I 
was opposed to forming an organization at the East End 
Meeting." Well, if he did say that he was opposed to it. he 
did not say to us that he opposed it in the East End Meeting, 
as he said to us this morning. A little further : "Now I wish 
to make a statement here : The question of forming an 
organization was before the East End Meeting, and I then 



TUESDAY, JUNE 9. 



435 



opposed it. I thought the motion carried, but it seems to be 
the case that it did not carry, and that my opposition had 
something- to do with the defeat of the measure. Xow, 
Fathers and Brethren, this may help to clear that difficulty.'" 

I think it does help to clear the whole difficulty. I think 
this statement throws such a flood of light upon this matter 
that all the mists and all the obscurities are cleared away : 
and we now stand face to face with the fact that this 
matter was brought before the East End Meeting, — the 
question of a permanent organization, — that it was discussed, 
that this man says he opposed it. but thought it was carried ; 
yet he thinks he has learned that it was not carried, and that 
his opposition to it was partly the reason why it was not car- 
ried. ''Some thought it carried. I did." Xow notice that: 
"Some thought it carried. I did. Others claimed that it did 
not. Reference to the notes of that Meeting as kept does not 
justify the claiming that it was carried, and hence the 
measure was defeated though it was talked about." Xow 
that is the stenographer's official report, taken down this 
morning, and he is ready to be qualified and give his affidavit 
that he took down the words just as they were spoken. 

Rev. D. S. FARIS : Taken down yesterday, not this morn- 
ing. 

Rev. H. W. REED : I wish the Court to remember that that 
record as read does not justify the assertion as made by the 
speaker that an organization was formed. 

Mr. Jos. STEA^EXSOX : What does the speaker mean 
when he says *• Official*' stenographer? 

Dr. MCALLISTER : It simply means that there is a stenog- 
rapher here taking down verbatim what is said ; that he took 
this record accurately as the words were spoken. 

Mr. STEVEXSOX: The authority is sufficient, is if? 

Dr. MCALLISTER : I have nothing further to say. 

Mr. STEVEXSOX: Did this Court employ him? 

Dr. MCALLISTER : It does not matter: I have no answer 
to give to that. 

I will proceed to some further facts. I am sorry there has 
to be this appeal to accuracy. I have to read another of 
these statements. You will all recollect that I arose and 
said : *T would like. Mr. Moderator, a very exact remembrance 
of this to be kept before the Court. I want the Court to re- 
member exactly what has now been stated." Some members 
of the Court took down what was said. Here is what the 
stenographer took down : 

••Rev. E. M. MILLIGAX : I will repeat it so as to impress 
it upon the mind of the Court; that at this Meeting when 
these contracictory statements were being made, I arose and 
asked the privilege of making a statement for the purpose of 
clearing up the apparent misunderstanding that existed : and at 
that time I stated the fact that there was a difference of opinion 



436 



STENOGRAPHIC REPORT. 



existing among the brethren; that in Mr. Temple's judgment 
an organization had been formed, but so far as I knew he was 
the only who attended that Meeting who thought an organi- 
zation had been effected, and that the rest of us were of a 
contrary opinion. One of the members of the Court then 
said that that was a candid statement. The Moderator asked 
me if the fact of an organization being formed was in the 
preamble or in the body of the Minutes ; and I told him I did 
not know, that I could not answer that question as I had not 
seen the Minutes." 

Now you will all remember the statements which are thus 
put upon record by the stenographer. 

Mr. Moderator, Fathers and Brethren, and the members of 
Pittsburgh Presbytery, too, — for they are all here I think, or 
a very large number of them, and they are ready to bear wit- 
ness to what I state, I begin by referring to these words which 
are ascribed to me : "The Moderator asked me if the fact of 
an organization being formed was in the preamble or in the 
body of the Mioutes." I affirm that I never mentioned the 
words "preamble or body of the Minutes." Why, how could 
a man do so? Did you ever hear of a preamble to Minutes? 
The preamble and the body of the Minutes of any meeting is 
something I never heard of. I wish to state still further in 
connection with this matter, and the members of the Court are 
ready to testify, that Mr. Milligan did not say what we have 
down here, "I told him I did not know, that I could not 
answer that question as I had not seen the Minutes." I will 
state what occured. 

One of these young men said that there was not a permanent 
organization effected. Mr. E. M. Milligan said then on the 
floor of Presbytery that the Minutes showed that there had 
been a permanent organization effected, for he had looked at 
the Minutes and seen the Minute. Now I am ready to have 
any of the brethren here bear testimony as to that fact, that 
that was what Mr. E. M. Milligan said then, at the meeting 
of Presbytery. This is to be added to what Mr. Temple said 
to me. 

And now you have this statement made before you here. 
Oh, my dear Fathers and Brethren, I feel sad at heart from 
the fact that there is going down in the records of history this 
full statement taken down verbatim ! Oh, that there might be 
that tenderness of heart on the part of posterity, as I believe 
there will be, that will prevent a harsh judgment being 
passed! Iam sure that I have no motive but the right and 
the truth. 

There is such a disease as "cacoethes loquendi;" and it 
would be well for any one who is afflicted with any such dis- 
ease as that, if he do not take an astringent, that his 
friends see to it that he should; and that there should not be 
given to him something like a powerful drastic dose, whether 



TUESDAY, JUNE 9. 



437 



it be by adulation, or whatever it might be, that would make 
a greater laxity in declarations on matters of such moment as 
this, bearing upon the welfare of the church to-day, and the 
honor of her King, through generations that are to come. I 
leave these statements which cannot be reconciled side by 
side with you. Fathers and Brethren, that you may pass judg- 
ment accordingly. 

Eev. E. M. MILLIGAK: I will ask the speaker to be kind 
enough to state what members of Pittsburgh Presbytery are 
ready to testify that I said I saw the Minutes. 

Dr. McALLISTEK: I will call upon Prof. Willson for one. 

Prof. D. B. WILLSON : I have this to say. that I took notes 
of what they said at the time, and that Mr. E. M. Milligan 
said that Mr. Temple's record showed the East End organiza- 
tion as being a permanent organization. I took notes of what 
he said because I was prosecuting the case. I took notes then 
just as I am taking now. I find that upon the notes Mr. 
Milligan said Mr. Temple's record showed an organization, 
the words being ''permanent organization ;" and that he 
added, "I never supposed there would be another meeting." 
Now that is all I took down. 

Eev. E. M. MILLIGAN : You cannot testify that I saw the 
Minutes. 

Prof. D. B. WILLSON : I have not that noted, but my 
impression is 

Eev. E. M. MILLIGAN: I admit I said Mr. Temple's 
Minutes show a permanent organization ; but the question is 
whether I saw those Minutes. 

Prof. D. B. WILLSON: Now my frank opinion is, I 
wouldn't make affidavit to it, but I could make affidavit to the 
fact that the records show that you said "permanent organi- 
zation." 

Dr. MCALLISTER: I would like to know how you know? 

Eev. E. M MILLIGAN: On Mr. Temple's word. 

Eev. J. C. SMITH : I think it is not on important difference. 
Dr. McAllister may have made a mistake in regard to that, 
and if he has it is not a very important matter. The only 
difference is as to whether he saw it. 

Eev. E . M. MILLIGAN : I would like to be qualified at this 
time and before this Court upon my oath and state whatever 
may have been the impression' of that Court, I have never 
seen those Minutes. 

Dr. McALLISTEE : I am perfectly satisfied to have that 
statement made. 

Eev. J. S. T. MILLIGAN: I think it would be unwise to do 
that. At the same time, if this is persisted in I hope he will 
be allowed the privilege. 

The MODEEATOEY Certainly, he will have that privilege. 

Dr. McALLISTEE : I am ready to admit, Mr. Moderator, 



438 



STENOGRAPHIC REPORT. 



that the impression that was made upon my mind was definite, 
and my recollection was distinct. 

Rev. J. S. T. MILLIGAN : I will say further, that I have 
talked with others that thought so, and there was a misunder- 
standing there as there has been in many other cases. 

Dr. R. B. CANNON: This question of veracity between 
these two persons has nothing to do with the charge here. 

Dr. MCALLISTER : I wish before I leave this matter as to 
the statement being in the preamble or in the body of the 
Minutes, to say that I cannot understand what would suggest 
the word '"preamble,'' unless there had been offered in the 
East End Meeting a resolution which contained a preamble, 
which would bring the matter before that Meeting to be dis- 
cussed. And I should judge from what was said here that 
there must have been something of that kind. It would be a 
very easy matter to have this all settled by laying the 
Minutes of the East End Meeting on the table of this Synod. 

There has been some measure of ridicule heaped upon me 
for calling for those Minutes to be put into my hands. I have 
never made any such demand. I did say that if it were an 
open meeting, it would be the fair and honorable thing to put 
those Minutes upon the table of Presbytery. And I have said 
here that if that was a Meeting about which there was no vail 
of secrecy, and no intent to cover up anything, it would be 
fair and honorable to put those Minutes in the hands of Synod 
or on this table, and questions like this would be determined 
by the Minutes themselves. There were Minutes kept, and 
testimony has been given by the persons who were present at 
the Meeting that the question did come up as to whether 
there would be a permanent organization. We have had the 
testimony given by a number of these persons that they 
thought the motion was carried, and that it was resolved to 
have a permanent organization. 

Now it is a marvellous thing that in a matter thus brought 
before the Meeting, according to the testimony ©f those who 
attended it, and the matter discussed before that Meeting, 
and the matter voted upon, that there should be such utter 
mystery and want of knowledge with regard to whether there- 
was a permanent organization effected or not. 

I leave the matter just at that point. If there has been 
confusion in the minds of the members of the Judicial Com- 
mittee, certainly you will excuse us, after all these facts have 
come out. You cannot blame us with having a measure of 
uncertainty in regard to this matter, when, after all these 
weeks and months have passed, we have these contradictory 
statements on the part of those who attended the Meeting. 

And now let me come to a case which has given the mem- 
bers of the Court not a little trouble, and that is Mr. Mc- 
Clurkin's case. I simply submit the proof and leave it with 
you. 



TUESDAY, JUNE 9. 



439 



His name is in the Minute with the other six. This 
Minute was not only read at the close of that Meeting, but at 
the time of the trial of the parties, at which trial Mr. 
McClurkin was present, in reference to which he deliberated 
and voted. The Minute was then brought out with the ut- 
most distinctness, because that was the evidence just as it is 
evidence here. It was evidence that the Court as witness 
gave that these persons named in that Minute were at the 
East End Meeting and gave their support to the East End 
Platform. Not one word of objection was made to that by 
Mr. McClurkin. 

It is said that he offered proof. There was no obstacle to 
his bringing proof. Not one word was said against it. If he 
had witnesses there who were ready to give testimony he 
could have brought them. Why did he not offer that testi- 
mony ? As a matter of fact, it was not offered. He did say he 
had such testimony ; but he did not produce it. There was 
no barrier in his way to prevent him from doing so. Yet he* 
did not do it. And what could the Court do? It could not 
demand that he should do so. It was willing to permit him 
to do it if he had claimed his right so to do; but he made no 
claim of the kind, and the matter of fact is that no such testi- 
mony was produced. 

So that we go back to the fact that here likewise was 
association; here was the linking together of a number of 
persons, linked together in connection with the East End 
Meeting; linked together in the coming of this matter before 
the Presbytery originally ; linked together as the matter came 
up in the Judicial Committee, — because although Mr. Mc- 
Clurkin was not present at that meeting of the Judicial Com- 
mittee, the basis agreed upon was sent to him, and it was re- 
turned with his signature to it. So that all these facts linked 
these persons together; and we insist, as the representatives 
of Presbytery, that it was no injustice and wrong, when they 
had linked themselves together, and when they did not bring 
the evidence that would separate them one from the other, 
that Presbytery should deal with them as being linked to- 
gether in connection with this matter. 

I pass on to the closing point, and that is as to the appeal 
from the suspension. And once more I must quote from this 
book which has been so much quoted from in part. I have 
noted some of the most important statements, and I would 
read the whole thing if it would not trespass upon your 
patience: "Declinatures are ante latam sententiam definiti- 
vam." (Steuart's Collections, Vol. I., p. 4 s7.) That is, giv- 
ing the English, declinatures are before the definitive sentence. 
"But appeals are made from and after that sentence." That 
is the difference between a declinature and an appeal. Now 
there is a distinction with regard to the declinatures, which 
are of two sorts : They are interlocutory appeals, that is taken 



440 



STENOGRAPHIC REPORT. 



before the definitive sentence which decides the case: and it 
is just now stated that appeals are properly made from the 
definite sentence. They are not interlocutory. Interlocutory 
appeals or declinatures are not from the definitive sentence 
deciding the case. So an appeal from the admissibility, or 
from the relevancy of the charges, or from anything that 
would not be definitive, which would not conclude the" case, 
which would not decide it. would come under this head: but 
an appeal properly made is from the definitive sentence. 

To that there is this exception, to which I call your atten- 
tion: "They are likewise made from interlocutory sentences, 
when they contain such damage to the party whereof no 
reparation can be expected iromthe definitive sentence that 
is to ensue." 

If the sentence were admonition or rebuke, then in the case 
of an interlocutory appeal, that sentence could not be carried 
into effect, because you could not recall the rebuke. So with 
regard to other matters which would be to the same end. 
But when it is this matter of suspension, as the books give 
you the cases, and I have referred to them until I am tired 
referring to them : in cases of that kind they are made the 
exception, and such interlocutory appeals are not to arrest 
the course of the proceedings, but they are to go forward to 
the definitive decision of the case, and then the appeal is to 
be from that. 

JSTow this is precisely what the Presbytery did. It went 
forward to its definitive decision, wbich found the persons 
accused guilty of pursuing divisive courses, and then it in- 
flicted upon them the sentence of suspension which was 
necessary to make the finding of any significance whatever. 
If they had simply been found, guilty and" dealt with as though 
they were not guilty, what would the sentence have amounted 
to? Prove a man guilty and let him go! What is the use of a 
trial at all? What results are accomplished? 

Let me bring up once more that illustration with regard to 
the crime of murder. When a man has been found guilty of 
murder, and an appeal is taken, he is put in safe keeping 
until the final decision. He would not be let go. that other 
murders might possibly be committed by the'same violent 
hand: but "there must be something done that will prevent 
this wrong and injustice, of which "there has been a sample 
already. Then when you come to the final trial in the ulti- 
mate court of appeal, the decision is given. If the decision of 
the lower court is sustained, the sentence will be executed. 
In the present case, in this ecclesiastical matter, persons were 
found guiity of disturbing the peace of the church, guilty of 
pursuing divisive courses, which brought upon the church 
distraction, which were filling us with sorrow and depressing 
the very hearts of ministers, elders and people throughout 
this Presbytery. These men had been found guilty of pnrsu- 



TUESDAY, JUNE 9. 



441 



ing that course. Now I am not saying that Presbytery was 
right in finding them guilty. I leave that for you to judge. 
The Presbytery, however, did honestly decide that they were 
guilty. You have heard with what unanimity that vote was 
reached. Having found them guilty, would they then be left 
to go on in what would be the same course? That would 
necessarily aggravate the case. The effects in what would 
follow would be far worse than they had been in the past. 
The one simple course of justice and right was for the Pres- 
bytery to suspend from the exercise of ministerial functions 
these men until the matter would come for adjudication in 
this Synod, when Synod would say whether that suspension 
had been right or not. If Synod should say that it was not 
right, then these men could be restored to their places. If 
Synod found they were not guilty of pursuing divisive 
courses, and injury was not resulting from their conduct 
towards the church, then the Synod could reverse the sen- 
tence of Presbytery. But something had to be done to protect 
the church. 

My dear Fathers and Brethren, let us remember that there 
is the great moral personality of the church herself, and let 
not our sympathy for individual members blind us to those 
higher interests. In all the administration of law and justice, 
whether in the state or in the church, there is danger that 
regard for the rights of individuals, — not rights, after all,, 
when you come to confront them with the rights of the social 
body,— but our sympathy, our strong feeling, goes out to- 
wards an individual because of the personality which is so 
near to us, and the affections which we feel tend strongly to 
blind us to our duty to the higher personality, the church 
herself, and the honor of the church's Head. 

In this case, in Presbytery's judgment, the honor of Christ 
as Head of the church was at stake; the welfare of His body 
was concerned ; and to guard against further injury to the 
body of Christ, and further dishonor, as the Presbytery 
understood it, to Him who is King and Head over the church, 
as He is King of kings and Lord of lords, they carried into 
effect the verdict finding these persons guilty of pursuing di- 
visive courses by suspending them temporarily from the ex- 
ercise of the office of ministers. 

And now I leave the whole matter with you. Fathers and 
Brethren, I simply ask you to bear in mind, as you shall de- 
cide, first, on the question of injustice and wrong, tfiat you 
are to be guided by these authorities which you have accepted 
as representing the principles of justice and the order and 
government of the house of God, as based upon the Divine 
Word. Then when you have settled this question of whether 
there has been any injustice and wrong done in the carrying 
on of this case, you will come to decide whether these appeals- 
from the judgment finding these persons guilty, are to be 



442 



STENOGRAPHIC REPORT. 



sustained or not. And then, in the next place, whether the 
appeal from the sentence which was inflicted upon them is to 
be sustained or not. 

Dear Fathers, we are standing on an elevated platform 
to-day. Tne eyes of this nation are upon us. Yes, the eyes 
of Christendom. We are settling principles that are to go 
down into the very life currents of the Covenanter church, 
through generations that are to come. JS'ot only is this nation 
looking upon us, but the dear fathers and brethren that are 
away from us to-day are listening for every word of news 
with intensest interest, such as we can hardly measure as we 
are present here ourselves. Some are lying upon their beds 
of weakness, near the gates of glory, following our proceed- 
ings with their hearts' affections aroused as I suppose they 
never have been aroused in their history before, .N"ot only 
this; but those with whom this church's history has been 
connected are witnesses of what is now being done. There 
are looking down upon us to-day great companies, that cloud 
of witnesses, the men of whom the world was not worthy, 
who wandered in sheep-skins and goat-skins, in dens and 
caves of the earth ; these men 

Rev. E. M. MILL iG AN : I call the gentleman to order. 

Dr. McALLISTER : — are taking note of what is here being 
done; and not only these, but tbe Head of the church Him- 
self ; and as His honor is concerned, and the honor of all our 
glorified ancestry, I ask you to render judgment as you shall 
stand with them at the bar in the great day, and give your 
account to the Judge of all. 

Rev. J. R. THOMPSON: I think it is customary to pro- 
pound questions to the parties? 

The MODERATOR : The Moderator was about to announce 
that this is the next step in the hearing of these appeals. It 
is now in order for any member of the Court to ask questions 
of either the appellants and complainants or the representa- 
tives of Presbytery. 

Dr. MCALLISTER : There is one thing I omitted. I think 
it might be well, with the indulgence of this Court, that Miss 
McConnell be permitted to make the statement which she 
desired to make, but which was not made in connection with 
the remarks of the speaker who referred to her. I think it is 
simply a matter of justice and right that her statement should 
be made. 

Rev. J. C. SMITH : It does not seem to me that this is nec- 
essary. I have never seen from the first the bearing of the 
matter, and I think that matter ought to be regarded as 
closed. I do not think any one's reputation is suffering or will 
be damaged by considering it closed. 

Mr. D. TORREN"S: There are some points that are some- 
what obscure to me, and I would like to ask some questions of 
those who have represented the Presbytery. When the Pres- 



TUESDAY, JUNE 9. 



443 



bytery met in October what measures did it take towards the 
settlement of the East End affair aside from referring peti- 
tions to the Committeee on Discipline? 

(The Moderator, in accordance with the rule, repeated the 
question, so that all members of the Court might hear it.) 

Dr. GEOEGE : The October meeting was our regular fall 
meeting. The order there was : The memorials and petitions 
were read and referred to the Committee on Discipline, and 
they prepared their report, setting forth the matters contain- 
ed in the memorials and proposing a line of procedure of this 
kind : That it appeared from these memorials that grievous 
charges were made affecting certain ministers, and of such a 
character as called for investigation: that they might be vin- 
dicated, or that the proper course of discipline might follow. 
The Committee on Discipline recommended, first, that we 
begin with an hour of prayer in which there should be very 
careful coming before God. I called attention to the fact that 
this was conducted by the Moderator: that he called the 
representatives of both sides, including Prof. MeClurkin and 
brother J. E. J. Miliigan. I called the attention to that be- 
cause the record shows 

Mr. TOEEEXS: I understood that. 

Dr. GEOEGE : We engaged in that season of prayer. The 
second recommendation was that following this season of 
prayer the opportunity should be open to these brethren to 
give their own explanation of the matters referred to in the 
memorials, with a view to removing any misunderstanding. 
The third recommendation was. that in case of the failure of 
this, then the matter should go to the Judicial Committee, 
with certain authority to make inquiry as to the evidence 
against them. 

Mr. TOEEEXS: I understand then from what Dr. George 
has said that there were no conciliatory measures taken. 

Dr. McALLISTEE : I insist that he has no right to do any- 
thing but ask questions. 

Mr. TOEEE>, S : I am only stating my understanding of his 
answer. 

Dr. McALLISTEE : I shall insist on my point of order, 
that he has no right to give his understanding of the answer. 

Mr. TOEEEXS : I want to get an answer that I understand. 

Dr. McALLISTEE : If vou don't understand it 

The MODEEATOE : You can ask another question. 

Mr. TOEEEXS : I will let the question pass. 

Dr. GEOEGE : Understanding Father Torrens' interest in 
the case I stated to him personally that if I did not make clear 
our case I would be glad to have him raise any point. 

Mr. TOEEEXS : I am very thankful to Dr. George for his 
kind offer in that matter : and I might say that his proposal 
so kindly made is the incentive in asking these questions. 



444 



STENOGRAPHIC REPORT. 



The MODERATOR : Please confine yourself to asking 
questions. 

Mr. TORRENS : Were the statements set forth in the me- 
morials accepted by Presbytery as a correct representation of 
matters as they existed in the case? 

Dr. GEORGE : Presbytery expressed no judgment as to the 
truth or untruth of the statements in the memorials; they 
understood them to represent a certain condition of affairs in 
the mind of the people, and they simply in adopting that 
report of the Committee on Discipline stated, 4 'It appears 
from these memorials that they set forth a certain state of 
feeling among the people, 1 ' without expressing any judgment 
as to whether the things set forth in the memorials were true 
or not. 

Mr. TORRENS: When the Committee on Discipline re- 
ported, did they recommend the appointment of a commission 
or a committee to adjust matters with the young men? 

(The Moderator repeated the question.) 

Dr. GEORGE : I stated, Mr. Moderator, that my recollec- 
tion is: the Committee on Discipline recommended a com- 
mission, but that Presbytery made the change itself to a com- 
mittee. I have no record, only my own memory of it, and 
that I do not trust absolutely. 

Mr. TORRENS : Dr. George's last answer will be an answer 
to my next question. Was the report and recommendation of 
the Committee on Discipline accepted and adopted by the 
Presbytery? 

Dr. GEORGE : My recollection, Mr. Moderator, is, as the 
record was read, that it was accepted and amended and 
adopted. I think that is the record that was read in your 
hearing. 

Mr. TORRENS : When the Judicial Committee met for the 
purpose of adjusting matters, were the young men asked to 
make a statement of their connection with the East End 
Meeting? 

(Question repeated by the Moderator.) 

Dr. GEORGE : Mr. Moderator, my recollection is, they 
were not asked to make a statement at that time. They had 
made statements on the floor of Presbytery. 

Mr. TORRENS : Did that Judicial Committee believe they 
had full power to settle that matter? 

Dr. GEORGE : Mr. Moderator, I certainly can answer for 
myself, and I think our whole procedure shows that we did 
not consider we had full power, because the Secretary was 
directed to call a meeting of Presbytery to act upon our re- 
port. 

Dr. MCALLISTER : Let me go a little further. It is evi- 
dent that that was not thought either by the Presbytery or by 
the young men because, as one of the young men has already 
brought out here, he asked what pledge would be given that 



TUESDAY, JUNE 9. 



445 



Presbytery would confirm what had been done by that Com- 
mittee; and Dr. Sproull, according to the statement of this 
young man, gave assurance that the Committee would do all 
in their power to have the Presbytery confirm the basis which 
the Committee would submit to Presbytery. 

Mr. TORRENS : I did not probably catoh all that was said 
by the young men in their addresses and that might probably 
have answered some of these questions that I am compelled 
to ask if I am -to go ahead intelligibly in this matter. Did 
members of that Judicial Committee believe the case was 
settled before they separated that evening? 

Dr. GEORGE : Mr. Moderator, I am not able to say; if he 
refers to the opinion they had as to whether the basis would 
carry or not, whether in their judgment it was likely to go 
through the Court, I am not able to say. But I expect they 
generally thought it would be accepted. However, I can only 
speak for myself. 

Mr. TORREISTS : Did not the congratulations expressed 
convey that impression as well as the obligation not to report 
the settlement outside? 

Rev. J. C. SMITH: I object to that question as being out. of 
order. 

Prof. WILLSOiS T : I object to that question. 

The MODERATOR : The question is out of order. 

Mr. TORRENS : I simply want to get what the impression 
of these congratulations was — the impression made on the 
young men, and the impression made on the members of the 
Committee. 

The MODERATOR : You can simply inquire, however, for 
matters of fact. 

Prof. WILLSOIST: I am prepared to answer that. If Dr. 
McAllister hadn't begun to shake hands I wouldn't have done 
it at all. 

Mr. TORRENS : Did the chairman of that Judicial Com- 
mittee write to Mr. McClurkin to the effect that a settlement 
of the matter had been arrived at, and wish him to subscribe 
to it? 

Dr. GEORGE : Mr. Moderator, I think you will have to 
refer that to the chairman. Dr. Sproull was the chairman of 
that Committee. 

Dr. J. W. SPROULL: In the first place: is that letter in 
this room? Is Mr. McClurkin here? 

(Rev. A. W. McClurkin rose.) 

Dr. SPROULL : Have you got that letter? 

Rev. A. W. McCLURKIN : I have not. 

Dr. SPROULL : I ask Mr. McClurkin if I asked him in that 
letter to sign anything? 

Rev. A. W. McCLURKIN: It was not asking me to sign; 
you did not use the word "subscribe" in that letter, but it 
was "to approve." 



446 



STENOGRAPHIC REPORT. 



The MODERATOR : The question then would be : If the 
chairman of the Judicial Committee wrote to Mr. McClurkin 
to the effect that a basis had been arrived at, and wished him 
to give his assent thereto. 

Dr. SPROULL : Just allow me to give my answer to that a 
little more fully. Brother George was clerk, and it was his 
place to do it; but he said he had so much writing to do, that 
as Mr. McClurkin had spoken to me. he would ask me to do 
it. I agreed to do so. I cannot tell now exactly what I wrote. 
I do not think I wrote any amount of gush. I know I felt 
good. As nearly as I can tell (and I hope the letter will see 
light) I wrote to my brother telling him of what we had done 
and that we had settled upon a basis of agreement, and that 
by instruction ©f the Committee I wrote to him, and I asked 
him to give his acceptance of it in ordar that he might have 
his case presented to Presbytery along with the other six. I 
think that is correct. 

Rev. A. W. McCLURKIN: I do not remember the exact 
terms of that letter, but it was to the effect, as nearly as I 
remember it, that a settlement had been arrived at in the Ju- 
dicial Committee, satisfactory to all, and that if I would give 
my approval to it he would report that a satisfactory settle- 
ment had been reached in the Judicial Committee to Presby- 
tery. 

Dr. SPROULL : I believe that was the sum and substance 
of it. 

Mr. TORRENS : In the addresses by the young men, I 
think without exception, they invariably emphasized this 
point, that they left that committee- room on that 

The MODERATOR; Ask questions. 

Mr. TORRENS : I am going to; I am explaining my ques- 
tions. 

The MODERATOR; No explanations; simply ask ques- 
tions. 

Mr. TORRENS : Then you will have to look for the point. 
Did the Judicial Committee before separating on that eve- 
ning in any way disabuse the minds of the young men of the 
impression that the matter was settled? 

Dr. GEORGE : I do not know that the Committee had any 
knowledge that their minds were abused. We parted, as is 
related, after we had agreed on a basis. The young men went 
out, and we completed our business and went home. I do not 
know whether I get the point. 

Mr. TORRENS: Dr. George said he knew it was not set- 
tled. 

The MODERATOR : Proceed with your questions. Do not 
make comments. 

Mr. TORRENS : Did the members of the Judicial Commit- 
tee separate with the distinct understanding that the basis 
arrived at would come before the Presbytery? 



TUESDAY, JUNE 9. 



447 



The MODERATOR: You mean both the young men and 
the Committee? 

Mr. TORRENS : Yes, sir. 

The MODERATOR : Did they all separate with the dis- 
tinct understanding that the basis arrived at would come be- 
fore the Presbytery? 

Dr. GEORGE : I think they did, certainly. 

Mr. TORRENS : Was there any understanding between the 
parties that that basis should be presented to Presbytery ac- 
companied with any matter other than a recommendation for 
its adoption? 

(The question repeated by the Moderator.) 

Dr. GEORGE : I am not aware of any understanding on 
that subject. 

Mr. TORRENS : Had the young men ever expressed any 
purpose to withdraw their assent from that agreement prior 
to the report of the Judicial Committee accompanied with 
resolutions? 

Prof. WILLSON : I object to this question because we do- 
not admit that. 
Dr. GEORGE : I can answer that. 

Prof. WILLSON : The question itself concedes something. 

Dr. GEORGE : The question implies something that is not 
correct according to our statement, that is, that the Judicial 
Committee reported their basis accompanied by another 
paper. They did not do anything of that kind. 

Mr. TORRENS: That is mj understanding, and I wish you 
would correct it. Do you mean that the presentation of the 
Judicial Committee's report was an independent thing from 
the resolutions? 

Dr. GEORGE : Oh, entirely independent. I am glad you 
asked if you had any such impression. I tried to emphasize 
that before the Court, that the report was entirely indepen- 
dent of the resolutions. 

Dr. MCALLISTER: Let me add a word. As a member of 
the Judicial Committee I knew nothing about those resolu- 
tions, never heard of anything of the kind, and was surprised 
when those resolutions were presented. At the same time I 
had the conviction in my own mind that Presbytery ought to 
put itself on record independently by such resolutions, 
against the East End.Meeting and Platiorm. 

Mr. TORRENS: Was it at the meeting of Presbytery at 
which the young men withdrew their assent to a part of the 
agreement, as I understand it. not the whole of it, with the 
Judicial Committee, that they were questioned with reference 
to their relation with the East End Meeting? 
(Question repeated by the Moderator.) 

Dr. GEORGE : The first statement in regard to that Meet- 
ing was made at the regular meeting of Presbytery. You 
allude to their voluntary statement? Their first statement of 



448 



STENOGRAPHIC REPORT. 



their connection was made at the regular meeting, and that 
was before the meeting of the Judicial Committee at all. 

Mr. TORRENS : What I want to get at is this : There were 
certain statements that these young men charge as being ex- 
torted from them, if I may use that word, and subsequently 
used as testimony against them. What meeting was that at? 

Prof. WILLSON : I again rise to the same point: the state- 
ment contains something that is not a true statement. It asks, 
Was it at such a meeting that they were questioned as to their 
connection with the East End Meeting? They were not ques- 
tioned. 

Dr. MCALLISTER : I rise to a point of order. It is about 
time that this manner of questioning, came to an end. It is 
high 

Rev. J. R. THOMPSON: We have a right to ask questions, 
and we intend to do so. 

Dr. MCALLISTER : But not questions that imply things 
that have never been stated or admitted. 

Prof. WILLSOX : I rise to the point of order that a mem- 
ber can ask questions that are to enlighten his mind as to 
something that has not been brought out; but not follow up 
the case by a series of questions that are not admissible in the 
form in which they are put. 

The MODERATOR : There may be something in the mind 
of the questioner perfectly proper to be brought out, but the 
exact form of the question is certainly out of order. 

Prof. WILLSOX: I might ask a man, "Did you kill that 
woman?" and the man might say 

Dr. MCALLISTER: But these questions are put, "When 
you killed that woman," taking it for granted that the woman 
had been killed. 

Mr. TORRENS; Nothing of the sort. I will say here and 
now that there is not a single question that has not emanated 
from my own thougets, and every one of them obedient to 
the light I saw, and if they are not in £>roper form, you will 
just attribute it to my ignorance. My next question is, Did 
the Moderator, in asking these young men questions, inform 
them that they were under no obligation to answer such 
questions? 

Dr. MCALLISTER : Here is just this same thing again, — 
"When this woman was killed." That is what I protest 
against. Let the Moderator state the question, and then I 
will make my point. 

Dr. GEORGE : If Father Torrens will precede his question 
by this question: "Did the Moderator question the young 
men at all, 1 * it will be in order. 

Mr. TORREXS : My questions are based on what I heard 
on that platform. 

The MODERATOR : The first question is : Did the Moder- 
ator question the } T oung men at all? 



TUESDAY, JUNE 9. 



449 



Mr. TORRENS : I would be very glad indeed if you would 
answer that. 

Dr. GEORGE : The Moderator, as I recollect, did not ques- 
tion the young men as to their attendance or adherence to the 
East End Meeting or Platform. The whole thing was a 
purely voluntary statement, and accompanied by the state- 
ment that no one need make a statement that did not desire 
to do so. 

Mr. TORRENS : One of the young men stood there and 
told the Court the tone of voice in which the Moderator asked 
a question, and insisted that he should answer yea or nay. I 
refer to that case. 

The MODERATOR : If you wish to ask any special ques- 
tion about Mr. McClurkin's case, that is in order. This is not. 

Mr. TORRENT : Did the Moderator inform them that their 
answers to the questions on that subject would be or could be 
used as evidence against them? 

The MODERATOR: That is implying there were questions 
asked. There were no questions asked. 

Mr. TORRENS : Then I am in the dark as to what the 
Moderator did. 

Rev. J. C. SMITH : I think I can clear this matter up. 

The MODERATOR : You are not in order. 

Rev. J. C. SMITH: There was a question put, to which I 
think Mr. Torrens refers, when Mr. McClurkin's libel was 
brought up. 

(The Moderator called the speaker to order.) 

Mr. TORRENS : There is no answer to that question because 
the Moderator never asked the young men any questions. 

The MODERATOR: Not at that stage of the proceedings. 

Mr. TORRE 1STS : Did we understand Dr. McAllister right 
that Presbytery in prosecuting a case on the ground of f ama 
clamosa acted as both witness and judge? 

Dr. MCALLISTER : The Moderator read from our Book of 
Discipline, page 82. paragraph 5, at the close of the para- 
graph : -'In prosecutions on fama clamosa, the Court finding 
the libel is not to be regarded as a party." 

Rev. D. S. FARIS : I want to ask Mr. McClurkin a question 
or two. Did you aknowledge before the Pittsburgh Presby- 
tery your connection with the East End Platform? 

Rev. A. W. McCLURKIN : No, sir, I did not. 

Rev. R. B. CANNON : Let us hear the question. 

The MODERATOR : Did you acknowledge before the Pres- 
bytery your connection with tke East End Platform? 

Rev. A. W. McCLURKIN : I did not. 

Rev. D. S. FARES : What proof have you, against the testi- 
mony of the Presbytery that you did not make such a state- 
meet? 

(Question repeated by the Moderator.) 

Rev. A. W. McCLURKIN : I have the proof of my own 



450 



STENOGRAPHIC REPORT. 



mind; the condition of my own mind at that time, and what 
was uppermost in my mind at that time. And besides the 
testimony of several witnesses, and i do not know how many, 
who have remarked the very same thing to me. I could not 
state the number of them, but their testimony agrees with 
mine. 

A MEMBER : What was the testimony of Presbytery? 

The MODERATOR : Mr. Faris has the floor. 

A MEMBER : I rise to .a .point of order : That is a leading- 
question and assumes testimony has been given, which should 
be produced. And this is the point raised by Prof. Willsom 

The MODERATOR : It is not the same point. 

Rev. D. S. FARIS : When did you bring that testimony 
forward before the Presbytery? Or did you bring that testi- 
mony forward before the Presbvterv? 

Rev. A. W. McCLURKIX : I offered, Mr. Moderator, when 
the admissibility of the libel was being considered, to produce 
the testimony before Presbytery, that the statements in the 
libel and in the Minutes, which I called for at that time, were 
not correct. 

Rev. D. S. FARIS : Did you prove it? 

Rev. A. W. McCLURKIX : I do not know that I was called 
upon to prove it; that that was my duty at that time. 

Rev. D. S. FARIS : How do you prove before this Synod 
that your statement, agamst Presbytery, is correct? 

Rev. A. W. McCLURKIN : I think it can be proved in this 
way before this Synod : that in the absence of proof, or in the 
absence of my own statements, my own declaration that I 
made no statement is suficient to vitiate the libel. 

Rev. D. S. FARIS: At what point did you take out your 
declinature? 

Rev. A. W. McCLURKIX : After Presbytery had decided 
on the relevancy of the libel. 

Rev. D. S. FARIS : Did Mr. McAllister examine you after 
you had taken out your declinature as to the fact? 

Rev. A. W. McCLURKIX : He asked me this question : 
Were you or were you not at the East End Meeting, after I 
had taken out my declinature. 

Rev D. S. FARIS : And you remained after taking out your 
declinature to anwer questions, did you? Or, put it this way, 
did you remain after you took out your declinature to answer 
questions? 

Rev. A. W. McCLURKIN : Perhaps the legal forms of a 
declinature are not complied with until the declinature is in 
the hands of the clerk. That may be the case. But I had 
stated that I would decline the authority of Pittsburgh Pres- 
bytery, and verbally gave my reasons, which reasons Pres- 
bytery permittted me to "have time to write out during the 
noon hour. 

Rev. D. S. FARIS : Had you delivered your written reasons? 



TUESDAY, JUNE 9. 



451 



Kev. A. W. McCLURKIN : And in presenting this declina- 
ture I was in the process of explaining my reasons, or the 
steps which led up to my entering this declinature, when the 
Moderator questioned me. 

Rev. D. S. FARIS : You had not then delivered your written 
reasons ? 

Rev. A. W. McCLURKIN : They were not yet delivered 
into the hands of the clerk of Presbytery. 

Rev. D. S. FAVIS : As soon as you had delivered those 
reasons did you depart from the Court and defend no more? 

Rev. A. W. McCLURKIN : I did not take part in the pro- 
ceedings of the Court; I retired to the rear of the room. I 
did not retire entirely from the building. 

Rev. D. S. FARIS: You made no more answers? 

Rev. A. W. McCLURKIN : I made no more answers. 

A MEMBER : I would like to ask Mr. McClurkin, if it is in 
order. Were you at the East End Meeting at its opening? 

Rev. J. R. THOMPSON: I object to that. 

A MEMBER: That question is not within the limit of the 
investigation under Mr. McClurkin's declinature and appeal. 

Prof. WILLSON : I think that shows the necessity of the 
question being put. 

Mr. PINKERTON : I would like to inquire if Mr. McClurkin 
on the floor of Presbytery expressed his approval of the East 
End Platform ? 

The MODERATOR : Did Mr. McClurkin 

Rev. J. R. THOMPSON: That question is objected to. 
There is no evidence before the Court that he did approve it, 
and the only question is as to the testimony. 

The MODERATOR : If Mr. McClurkin was on trial before 
the Presbytery that would be a proper question; but now we 
have no right to ask a question except upon the testimony 
before this Court. 

A MEMBER : That matter was before the Court. 

The MODERATOR : Not this statement of approval or dis- 
approval. 

Dr. GEORGE : 'The record of Pittsburgh Presbytery to that 
effect was read. 

Rev. J. R. THOMPSON" : Mr. McClurkin denied he was at 
the Meeting. 

Dr. MCALLISTER : He did not deny it. 

Rev. J. R. THOMPSON : He called for the testimony of the 
Court. 

The MODERATOR : This question is based upon matters 
that were brought before this Court. 

Rev. J. R. J. MILLIGAN : Was there a minute to the effect 
that he gave his approval? 

Dr. MCALLISTER : Let the Minute be read. 

(The cleark read as follows): 

"Item 2 was adopted. Opportunity was given to brethren 



452 



STENOGRAPHIC REPORT. 



to explain their position and connection with the matters 
complained of. Statements were volunteered by Revs. J. R. 
J. Milligan, H. W. Reed, E. M. Milligan, A. W. McClurkin, 
O. B. Milligan, W. L. C. Samson, H. W. Temple, all of whom 
attempted a defence of their connection with the adoption 
and publication of the Platform referred to in the memorials." 

A MEMBER : I would like to know if the statement of Mr. 
McClurkin, made upon that occasion, is the evidence before 
the Court that he was connected with the East End Platform? 

The MODERATOR : The question is, What was the state- 
tement made by Mr. McClurkin before the Pittsburgh Pres- 
bytery? 

Rev. J. R. THOMPSON : We want to know if there is writ- 
ten testimony to the effect that he made such a statement. 
Now, the book says that the entire testimony of each witness 
shall be reduced to writing as nearly as possible verbatim; 
then read to him, and if necessary corrected, when he shall 
affix to it his signature. Whe have not a word of testimony 
before this Court, written out and signed. 

Prof. WILLSON; I call that brother to order. 

Mr. TORRENS : Mr. Moderator, I read here, "Nothing 
shall be taken into consideration by the Superior Court 

Prof. WILLSON : I call the member to order. I want them 
to keep at the questions. 

The MODERATOR: The Moderator is endeavoring to hold 
to the rule. 

Rev. J. F. CARSON : Has there been a record made of the 
statements made by the complainants? v 

Dr. MCALLISTER : The record has been read. 

Rev. J. F. CARSON : I would ask if that is the whole 
record of the statements made by these men? 

Dr. McALLiSTER : That is the whole record. 

Rev. J. F. CARSON: May I ask then what were the state- 
tements these men made? I want from the record the state- 
ments these men made? 

Dr. MCALLISTER : The record is there and it can just 
answer for itself. 

Rev. J. F. CARSON : The only record is that these men 
attempted a defence. 

The MODERATOR : I will put the question in form. Is 
the record that these men attempted a defence of their con- 
nection with the East End Meeting and Platform the only 
record of the statements these men made? 

Dr. GEORGE: That is the Presbytery's record of what oc- 
curred on its floor. 

Rev. J. F. CARSON: Was it for making that record before 
the Court that they were accused and suspended? 

Dr. MCALLISTER : That is a nonsensical question. 

Rev. J. F. CARSON : Was it upon that record they were 
tried and suspended? 



TUESDAY, JUNE 9. 



453 



(Question repeated by the Moderator.) 
Dr. GEORGE : They were tried upon a libel. 
Rev. J. F. CARSON : Then may I ask another question ♦ 
Wa« this record the record that was put in the libel? 
(Question repeated by the Moderator.) 

Dr. GEORGE : The libel itself might show. My conviction 
is that 

Dr. MCALLISTER: The libel is there, and it can be called 
for. 

Rev. J. F. CARSON : Then I would call for the libel to see 
if that is the exact language that is in the libel. 

Rev. J. R. THOMPSON" : Is there no written testimony on 
the record of Presbytery forming the charge that Mr. Mc- 
Clurkin made these statements to it? Because testimony must 
be written down and signed. 

Dr. MCALLISTER: This a violation of the rules, and I 
protest against it. 

The MODERATOR: The members will please confine 
themselves to questions, without any comments as to what 
the law is. 

The ASSISTANT CLERK: Is it necessary that there be 
testimony as to framing the libel? 

Pro . WILLSON : We can begin with fama clamosa and 
ground the libel. We can start in on questions like that. 

Dr. MCALLISTER : If we are going to have a discussion 
on these points of law it is well to understand it, because 
there are points being raised here that involve any amount of 
discussion, such as, who is a witness, and what is competent 
testimony. Now, we are past all that. That has already 
been brought out. If we are to have a discussion on that we 
are going back to the trial. I insist that members should be 
confined to asking questions. 

Mr. Jos. STEVENSON : I ask for the reading of the testi- 
mony on which the young men were convicted. 

(At this point a motion was made, seconded and carried, 
that the asking of questions cease, that the parties be re- 
moved, and that Synod proceed to vote on the questions be- 
fore it.) 

Rev. J. R. THOMPSON: I wish to say a few words in 
regard to Mr. McClurkin's case. Mr. McClurkin simply made 
a complaint to Synod, he did not make an appeal. The others 
made an appeal and complaint. 

In regard to complaints, the book says, page 83:" "A 
complaint brings the whole proceedings in the case under 
review of the superior judicatory; and may result in censure 
upon the inferior, and also in reversing the decision com- 
plained of." Now, Mr. Moderator, in regard to this motion 
that the complaint of A. W. McClurkin be sustained, I have 
a very few words to say. It is such a plain simple case that 
I am sure this Court will decide it in ten minutes. I read the 



454 



STENOGRAPHIC REPORT. 



law, as I read it before, where a party appeals we have no 
right to introduce any testimony here but what is found on 
the record ; we cannot call up any man to give testimony in 
this Court. We are to base our decision upon the record, 
nothing more, nothing less. 1 will read the law : "The entire 
testimony of each witness shall be reduced to writting as 
nearly as possible verbatim ; then read to him, and if neces- 
sary corrected, when he shall affix to it his signature." Now, 
I make an appeal to this Court, Is there any written testimony 
on the Minute Book that has the signature of A. W. Mc- 
Clurkin affixed to it? Not one syllable, not one word. Why, 
a police court would throw this case out in five minutes ! 
There is not a scintilla of evidence. We are to base our judg- 
ment, not upon the speeches made, not upon hearsay testi- 
mony, not upon the testimony of any witnesses that might be 
presented here, but we are to go to the written record. There 
is the only testimony we have, and the testimony of that 
record is just this, that he defended his case. Not. one word 
as to what he said ! He made no confession : he made no 
acknowledgement. There is not the word of one witness to 
prove that he was at the East End Meeting; not one witness 
to prove that he approved of the Platform, 

We cannot go behind the record, and I think we ought since 
the Presbytery has not furnished us with one word of testi- 
mony, signed by the witness, to throw the case immediately 
out of Court. I am surprised that we have a professor of the 
church here, Dr. Willson, who ought to know more, and we 
have Dr. McAllister, and Dr. George, prominent, influential 
men, defending this action. They ought to know what 
church law is. They ought 

The MODEKATOK : The speaker will please confine him- 
self to the one point. 

Rev. J. R. THOMPSON : Now, I hold that it is unjust, I 
hold it is wrong, to condemn a man and suspend him without 
any testimony, and there is no testimony on the record. It 
is a very solemn, sacred thing, to stand up, in the name of the 
Head of the Church and suspend a minister from his office, 
and leave him, for nearly six months, without anything to do. 
It is a very solemn and important matter, and no church 
Court should ask the prerogative to suspend a man without 
testimony, given before the, Court, — testimony written down, 
— testimony signed by the witness. And as we are to decide 
the case on that testimony, and on nothing else, I argue that 
this case ought not to be entertained for one moment. 

There is no evidence that he confessed being at the East 
End Meeting. The statements that were made by members 
of Presbytery do not show that, even admitting we had any 
written testimony. Their statements do not prove, and have 
not proved to thfs Court that he acknowledged being at the 
East End Meeting. He denied it. He would not confess it, 



TUESDAY, JUNE 9. 



455 



and it was their place to bring forth testimony that he was 
there. Then again, there is no evidence that he has approved 
of the Platform of the East End Meeting. Why, sir, you 
might as well charge me with having been at that Meeting 
and indorsing that Platform! If you would bring a libel 
against me to-day I would call upon you to bring up witness- 
es, to produce your testimony, to have your testimony writ- 
ten out and signed by the witness. Mr. Moderator, this is not 
the first trial I have been in in church courts, either in session, 
in Presbytery or in Synod, and I have never yet seen a case 
before a court, where there was an attempt to convict a man 
unless the testimony was in black and white, written out and 
signed. Now, I will not argue any further on this matter, in 
regard to the injustice of the suspension. Why, I might make 
a speech on that, but I just make this one point, that there is 
no testimony, I appeal to you Fathers, I appeal to you 
Elders, to-day, if you were the one on trial, if your son was 
on trial, would you submit to it for one moment, to be con- 
victed and suspended from the privileges of the church, and 
from the ministry, without the slightest syllable of testimony? 
They say he made statements, that he acknowledged he was 
at the Meeting. But he denies that, and they have no written 
testimony to prove it. I move that the complaint of A. W. 
McClurkin be sustained. 

Rev. D. S. FARIS: I want to make a motion before this — 

Rev. R. B. CANNON: I want to make a motion, and my 
motion is this ; Mr. McClurkin declined the authority or right 
of Presbytery to try his case just at the very commencement. It 
is what is called an interlocutory appeal. That is the first 
thing we have to take up, and determine, — whether or not he 
had good cause of appeal. I contend this is according to our 
practice, and according to our Book of Discipline. 

Rev. D. S. FARIS: I want to make a motion that in the 
consideration of all these cases the speakers be limited to five 
minutes. 

(Seconded and carried.) 

Rev. J. McCRACKEN : I have some resolutions with refer- 
ence to the question, the main question, the real issue before 
us; and I will read, first, the resolutions with reference to the 
case before us; "Resolved, that although in the review of 
these cases some informalities have appeared, they have not 
seriously affected the procedure : Therefore, the complaints 
of injustice and wrong be dismissed. 

"Resolved, that Revs. H. W. Reed, W. L. C. Samson, E. M. 
Milligan, J. R. J. Milligan, O. B. Milligan, having fully and 
distinctly avowed their presence at the East End Meeting and 
their responsibility for its published Platform, thus putting 
the facts of the case beyond question, their appeals be dis- 
missed. 

"As the conduct of the case has brought to view misunder- 



456 



STEMOGRAPHIC REPORT. 



standings, arising largely from a want of confidence between 
the parties, and which misunderstandings have unhappily 
complicated the case with personal elements, and as the 
sentence has been severely felt by the parties who have been 
under it for a period of five months. Resolved, that their sus- 
pension be now removed on their acceptance of the following 
conditions: First. That they severally express their sorrow 
for the dissensions in the church so far as they have been the 
occasion of the same. Second. That they disavow the East 
End Platform as a bond of union within the Reformed Pres- 
byterian church and that they withdraw from the agreement 
to maintain the principles set forth in the Platform. Third. 
That they engage to abide by the existing laws of the church 
as to voting at civil elections and holding office, and to carry 
them out in the exercise of their office, and engage not to 
propagate contrary views to the above while holding the 
position of ministers in the Reformed Presbyterian church. 

'•Whereas Rev. A. W, McClurkin has denied in this Court 
that he ever made any acknowledgment of responsibility for 
the East End Platform, and Pittsburgh Presbytery furnished 
no record of such statement, and that Rev. E. M. Milligan 
has declared on the floor of Synod that A. W. McClurkin had 
no part in the making of the Platform, Resolved, that this 
complaint be sustained and his case be dismissed. "Resolved, 
that Synod condemns the East End Platform, particularly in 
the following points: 1. We condemn article 1, clause 2 y 
which reads: 'Yet the terms of communion ought to be 
limited to the plain requirements of the Scripture, namely y 
faith in Christ and obedience to His revealed will,' as mis- 
leading, and as it is defined by its advocates, manifestly con- 
trary to our standards. 2. We condemn the second plank, 
second clause, which reads : 'Without binding them to our 
explanation in the matter of political dissent and other 
things,' as nullifying and abolist ing the functions of the 
creeds of God's house. 3. We condemn the . third plank, 
'That restricted communion and not close communion is the 
teaching of the Bible and of our standards,' as contrary to- 
and misinterpreting the standards. 4. We condemn the sixth 
article as opening up interminable controversy and strife and 
affording constant opportunity to distract the church and 
disturb her peace and bring into contempt her cherished doc- 
trines and established principles." 

(Immediately upon the motion being seconded, five persons 
arose and called for the ayes and noes, and the Moderator 
directed the clerk to proceed to call the roll, which he did.) 

The MODERATOR : The question that we are to vote on 
now is, that Mr. Thompson's motion be laid on the table for 
the purpose of entertaining the substitute offered by Mr. Mc- 
Cracken. 

(The clerk having finished the calling of the roll, the Mod- 



TUESDAY, JUNE 9. 



457 



erator announced that the vote stood ayes 125, noes 42 : the 
motion being carried.) 

Key. X. KT JOHXSTOX : I rise now to move that the mo- 
tion now before this Court be laid on the table until we can 
have a printed copy of this paper, because it is so important 
that we cannot vote without it. 

Motion seconded. 

Dr. McAlrLISTEB : I wish to give notice of my dissent, for 
the reasons that have been already given, and especially for 
this one reason, that this is interfering with the due and reg- 
ular order of these cases as cases of discipline. 

Rev. J. E. THOMPSON: I am sorry that the motion to lay 
on the table has been carried. You have matter enough in 
that paper to last this Synod for discussion one month. 

Rev. J. C. SMITH: I want to make a remark on the mo- 
tion. I do not think it is necessary to do this. We can take 
this paper up. item by item, and surely when we have the 
items before us. one bv one. we can consider it. 

Mr. WALTER T. MILLER : I think we ought to have it 
printed. 

A MEMBEE : The reporters say that if the Court will give 
them the paper, they will have it printed in the papers 
to-morrow morning. 

(The motion to lay on the table until printed copies could 
be obtained was then put and declared lost.) 

Prof. D. B. WILLSOX: Mr. Moderator, we are just where 
we were Saturday week, only a good ways further back. 
Mark my words, we are just where we were Saturday week, 
but a good ways further back. You have here brought before 
you a paper which will keep us here during the month of 
June, because it brings before us the whole subject of the 
East End Platform, upon which we know perfectly well, 
from discussions of the past year, there are serious differences 
in our church. There are men here who have committed 
themselves to that Platform in writings going throughout 
the past year, and who are fully prepared, I think, to speak 
here one day each. Xow that is my opinion. I want to ex- 
pressly insist upon it that the Book of Discipline says that 
after you have heard the case, the motion shall be to affirm 
or reverse the decision of the Court. You will please read, 
Mr. Moderator, the rule. 

The MODERATOR read; -In making up its decisions- 
upon cases of appeal, the Court will proceed by motion made 
and seconded: and the decision maybe either to confirm or 
reverse, in whole or in part: or to remit the cause for the 
purpose of amending the record, if it be found defective, or 
for a new trial.*' 

Prof. TVILLSOX : You will notice. Mr. Moderator, that all 
those motions specified there are judicial, and they tend to- 
get a righteous decision on the case, — confirm or reverse the 



458 



STENOGRAPHIC REPORT. 



decision, remit for defective record, or for anything in a 
judicial line. My Brother Thompson's motion was judicial, 
thac is, that you sustain the complaint of A. W. McClurkin. 
And that is the motion that is germane to the subject at this 
point of procedure. The parties have been thoroughly heard. 
The case has been discussed for many days. Everything has 
been brought before you, — all light that is judicial. We are 
sitting here as a court of the church, the superior judicatory 
of our church, in this land. Now, I wish to bring before you 
that this is an extra-judicial proceeding. It is partly judicial 
and partly non-judicial, as you see at once from this : When 
we are debating one thing Pittsburgh Presbytery was said to 
be removed. 

The moment that motion was laid on the table, the Moder- 
ator said Pittsburgh Presbytery had a right to be heard. Of 
course it had a right to be heard, because the general subject 
was up again. 

Now, I wish to say that this is a very perilous and danger- 
ous course of procedure for a court. When we have had a 
oase brought before you for you to say who is right and who 
is wrong, we want your decision. For my part, I want you 
to decide the case. But this mode of proceeding by a partly 
judicial procedure, mixed up with resolutions, is not of the 
character of judicial proceedings, and is no settlement of the 
case at all. It is no settlement of the case at all. 

I would call your attention to the fact that you had brought 
before you the head line, k 'A Truce Declared," by my brother 
representing Pittsburgh Presbytery. You saw that it was 
construed as a truce. The brethren that were before Pitts- 
burgh Presbytery said, that when those resolutions were 
brought in by Dr. George they looked upon them as coming 
in in bad faith. Because he took on himself to condemn the 
East End Platform when their mouths were stopped from 
defending it; therefore they looked upon it that that settle- 
ment in the Committee was not observed by Brother G-eorge, 
for the reason that it was opening up the subject again after 
a basis of agreement had been reached. You then said the 
Platform was wrong, and yet expected them to keep still with 
reference to that Platform. 

We were thus brought face to face with the fact that when 
men have convictions they do not intend to be silent upon 
those convictions. That is what we heard in Presbytery. 
That is what we heard on this platform, — that men who have 
convictions will utter them. And we have had a measure of 
this during the past year, in the discussion of the principles 
of our church, by those setting up that practical political dis- 
sent ought not and cannot constitutionally be required by the 
Covenanter church. 

Now, I will tell you just where we are. We are just where 
Pittsburgh Presbytery was when the Judicial Committee 



TUESDAY, JUNE 9. 



459 



framed the basis of agreement. It won't amount to a straw ; 
it won't stop the discussion in the Covenanter church, but 
you will have a worse state of affairs than you have now. 

There are people in our church that have the conviction 
that the standards of the church teach that practical political 
dissent should be required, and those people have been look- 
ing to this Synod for a decision. Now, to vacate your place, 
to lay aside your judicial proceeding and settle a case like 
this ! It will rise to trouble you, and I say what I did say last 
Saturday, and I will say it over again, that I mean to protest 
to the end against the highest court of the Reformed Presby- 
terian church avoiding an issue, and saying it is not prepared 
to say that practical political dissent is to be enforced by the 
Presbyteries and Sessions of our church ; and I want to say, 
likewise, to you, that there is a false impression in this mat- 
ter, that somehow or other you have to relieve the young men 
here and now. The members are not cut off from the Cove- 
nanter church by the sentence ; they are simply remanded to 
the Presbytery under whose jurisdiction they are, to deal 
with them. Pittsburgh Presbytery thinks they have done 
wrong, and has decided they have done wrong. They have 
appealed from that, and they say they did right. You have a 
clear issue brought before you of right and wrong. If you 
make anything of a settlement you will face nothing but dis- 
aster. If, when you have reached this stage of a judicial 
proceeding, you attempt in this extra-non-judicial way to 
settle a question fairly brought before you, as the highest su- 
preme judicatory of the church, you will meet with nothing 
but disaster. In other words, as stated in the General As- 
sembly of the Presbyterian church, the highest court of the 
church can declare the law, and in a concrete case can only 
decide between parties appealing to it for a decision. You 
are going out to broken cisterns that can hold no water; you 
are crying, "Peace, peace," when there is no peace. 

Mr. WALTER T. MILLER: I move we call for. the read- 
ing of the resolutions. 

. Dr. T. P. STEVENSON": Is it not true that these resolu- 
tions provide for a formal deliverance upon the e three 
points: 1st. The dismissal of the complaint of injustice and 
wrong. 2nd. The dismissal of the appeals. 3rd. The sus- 
taining of the complaint of A. W. McClurkin. Do not those 
resolutions, which are proposed for the action of this Synod, 
include in themselves a formal judicial deliverance on those 
three points? 

Rev. J. C. SMITH: Certainly they do. 

Dr. T. P. STEVENSON : How then can it be said that the 
adoption of this series of resolutions, which are presented as 
formal deliverances of this Synod on the whole case, would 
be an extra-judicial or non-judicial procedure? And, further- 
more, is it not entirely competent for this Synod, in giving a 



460 



STENOGRAPHIC REPORT. 



judicial issue to this trial, to make a declaration, and to pass 
resolutions, such as it may deem, in its wisdom, needful to 
express its judgment upon the whole case? And then, fur- 
thermore, when we have these resolutions before us, as we 
now have, by the vote of this Synod, is it not competent for 
this Synod, as we proceed to consider and adopt them, step 
by step, if at any point it be deemed preferable to send these 
appellants back to their Presbytery, is it not competent for 
this Synod to take that action? When we take up the resolu- 
tions we can amend them, step by step, to express the best 
judgment of this Synod upon the whole case. And, then, it 
is not clearly understood in what order these resolutions will 
come before us. The mover of the resolutions said he thought 
the preferable order would be to adopt the resolutions first 
and the judicial deliverances afterwards. That is not, how- 
ever, the order in which they were read. 

(The motion made by Mr. Miller was then seconded by 
Rev. J. C. Smith and Rev. D. S. Faris, and being put to vote 
was declared carried.) 

Rev. J. McCRACKEISr : Let me explain to you: I have 
been here personally now ten or eleven days, and the church 
is agitated to its circumference. The brethren at home are 
looking to us for a settlement of this question. It cannot be 
settled upon a merely technical legal point. It has got to be 
settled upon the great issues that are involved in it. 

Prof. WILLSOX : I would like to ask Brother McCracken 
a question : Do resolutions bind any person but those voting 
for them ? 

Rev. Mr. McCRACKEN : A decision of the supreme court, 
issued in the name of the supreme court, dismissing an appeal 
dismisses it. 

Prof. WILLSON : I asked you in regard to resolutions. 

Rev. Mr. McCRACKE^ : The language of the paper is, 
"that this appeal be dismissed." 

Dr. MCALLISTER : I just want to say a word or tM'O. I 
voted against these resolutions for the reason that they came 
up, as I understood when they were read, as resolutions and 
not as judicial deliverances. I would have preferred to meet 
every point judicially. If these are understood to be judicial 
deliverances, then my objection is largely withdrawn. 

Rev. Mr. McCRACKEIST : I will make them that. I have 
written there, "the cases be dismissed," If that is not a judi- 
cial deliverance I do not know how to make one. 

The MODERATOR : The clerk will read the item. 

(The clerk read :) 

"Resolved, that, although in the review of these cases some 
informalities have appeared, they have not seriorsly affected 
the procedure: Therefore, the complaint of injustice and 
wrong be dismissed." 



TUESDAY, JUNE 9. 



461 



Key. D. S. FARIS: I move its adoption. 
Motion seconded.) 

Dr. MCALLISTER : I insist that we shall have a judicial 
deliverance: and if this is offered as a judicial deliverance, 
then I have no objection. 

Rev. J. E. THOMPSON : I want to understand this. 

(The clerk again read the paper.) 

Dr. J. C. K. MILLIGAX: This is a motion to decide upon 
a complaint of injustice and wrong- against Pittsburgh Pres- 
bvterv. Have thev a right to vote? 
"Dr.* MCALLISTER : We do not claim the right to vote. 

Dr. T. P. STEYEXSOX: On this motion I call the ayes 
and noes. I think when we have the ayes and noes upon 
comparatively unimportant matters we ought to have them 
on so important a matter as this. 

Rev. J. R. THOMPSON: Is that item to be discussed? 

The MODERATOR: That item is open for discussion ; the 
speeches are limited to five minutes. Dr. Stevenson has the 
floor. 

Dr. T. P. STEYEXSOX: I was not rising to discuss the 
paper. I only rose to call for the ayes and noes. 
(Cries of "question," -question.") 

A MEMBER : It was voted to entertain a substitute motion 
and to take it up item by item for adoption. Is that before 
us until a motion is made to that effect? 

The MODERATOR: A motion has been made to that 
effect. 

(Bv request the paper was again read.) 

Rev. J. S. T. MILLIGAX : Is this intended to refer to the 
case of Mr. McClurkin? 

Rev. J. C. SMITH: I suggest, this should read so as to in- 
clude all except Mr. McClurkin's case, as that is the under- 
standing. 

Rev. J. R. THOMPSOX : Mr. McClurkins case should come 
first. 

Tne MODERATOR: What is the understanding of the 
meaning of this resolution? 

Rev. J. C. SMITH: I was aking that the mover and all of 
us agree that it shall refer to all the cases except Mr. McClur- 
kin's. as that case is to be considered separately. 

Rev. Mr. McCRACKEX : There is a special article for Mr. 
McClurkin's case. 

Rev. J. S. T. MILLIGAX: Brethren, this resolution con- 
tains a matter of very serious importance. I am very free to 
concede that there are principles lying back of this procedure 
that are of vast importance. I would to God that this judicial 
procedure would settle all the matters that are before the Re- 
formed Presbyterian church. — ali the questions in issue. But 
five minutes only are allowed me for what I have to say on 
this matter. I wish to say that the question of the admis- 



462 



STENOGRAPHIC REPORT. 



sibility of a libel is not a matter of small import. The question 
of the testimony, especially when that testimony connects 
with a matter of confession, is a very important matter. We 
have all heard that these statements should be reduced to 
writing. Why? So that the declaration of the parties in the 
matter will thus always, in the whole course of the trial, be a 
matter that can be referred to with definiteness and accuracy. 
The case of Mr. McClurkin is an illustration. They, by going 
on in this matter, pursued a course that I am free to say I 
believe would not stand for a moment in any court in the 
United States or in the civilized world. I am, of course, not 
very familiar with the procedure of other bodies, but I sub- 
mit it should not stand for a moment, on the trial of a case, 
with the testimony in the form in which we have it. 

Then, in regard to the relevancy, the leading defender of 
Pittsburgh Presbytery admitted that the discussion of the 
relevancy was ruled out. Was ever such a thing heard of ! 
That the charge in the libel was the only matter to be con- 
sidered in the matter of relevancy, and not the specifications ! 
Why, you see there should have been opened up at that point 
the discussion of all these questions concerning whether or 
not the first plank, the second plank, and the third plank and 
the fourth plank, etc., are agreeable to or contrary to the 
principles of the Reformed Presbyterian church, i submit, 
if I were going to be turned out of the Reformed Presbyterian 
church, I would want to make my defence upon what I believe 
to be the principles of the Reformed Presbyterian church. 
By that ruling they cut off from showing that their views 
were consonant with the principles of the Reformed Presby- 
terian church. 

And, then, in regard to the matter of suspension after the 
appeal. I believe Dr. McAllister interpreted substantially 
correct what we have in Steuart's Collections, that according 
to that book the Presbytery may go on and even suspend the 
parties; but if they take an appeal, and follow it up, the 
action is sisted by the appeal even then. Now, I admit that 
the United Presbyterian church and the Presbyterian church 
have adopted another course ; but I think this is the wiser 
course. 

Dr. GEORGE: I rise to this point of order: The point 
which my brother is discussing is not a point that is involved 
in the complaint of injustice and wrong. 

Rev. J. S. T. MILLIGAJS" : Why deprive men of their rela- 
tion to their congregations for six months, and send these 
sheep without a shepherd during all that time! Was there 
ever such a thing heard of! And to be suspended before the 
world as guilty of that, on account of which they deserved to 
be suspended from office, and be suspended from the priv- 
ileges of the church ! Why, I am astonished that that matter 
should not be considered a matter of injustice and wrong! 



TUESDAY. JUNE 9. 



•465 



And I want to say that I believe in the history of civilization; 
according to the Encyclopedia Britannica. it is one of the 
precious principles of liberty that every man in the state and 
every man in the church has a right to have the decision of 
the tribunal, in the church or in the state, before the sentence 
is executed upon him. In this case that sentence was suspen- 
sion. There might have been extraordinary circumstances 
that would have warranted a precautionary suspension when 
the matter was flagrant, as adultery or some of these things; 
but suspension as"a judicial sentence, executed upon these 

parties 

(Here the hammer fell.) 

Dr. JAMES KEXXEDY: I have not occupied any of your 
time, but I would like to say a word or two on this occasion. 
The opening language of our brother. Dr. Willson. struck me 
as something very strange. He said we were here just at the 
same place we were eight or ten clays ago. If that be so. we 
have come through very little, after all'the grand oratory and 
all the eloquence that has been thrown away upon us. And 
it is said we ought to be better children than we are. after all 
we have come through — I would say. the school of tribu- 
lation. We have benefitted neither by our mercies nor by our 
sufferings. I think we are a good piece in advance. And 
there is one thing I want to say, and that is. It is particularly 
gratifying to me to understand that our deliverance was to be 
drawn up in its present shape: and I hold that a deliverance 
in that shape and form is as much a judicial deliverance as 
any other deliverance that could be made. But the thing that 
gratified me particularly is this : that we can under this form 
get at the whole subject. Now. it has relieved me very much, 
because, in the first place. I could not conscientiously vote for 
sustaining in every case the action of Presbytery. In the sec- 
ond place. I could not conscientiously vote to sustain in many 
different respects the appeals of the young men. The conse- 
quence is, by taking this course. I can point out what I have 
a right to object to of the one and of the other; and I can act. 
not "as a partizan, not as following or dragooned by anybody, 
but I can stand here and vindicate the ground of my action, 
and I can ask candid men to hear my opinions. But, really, 
there are various points in the action of Presbytery on which 
I believe their action could not be sustained. In the first 
place, if they had improved the opportunity that was offered 
them when they agreed upon a basis, that would have 
relieved all the difficulties between the young men and the 
Presbytery: and if the Presbytery had carried out that agree- 
ment, without any additions, that were sure to give offence to 
the other side, the whole thing might have been settled, and 
we might have avoided this trouble. Our Book of Discipline 
says that the first step of censure is admonition, the second is 
rebuke, and the third is suspension. They seem to have 



464 



STENOGRAPHIC REPORT. 



jumped over the first two. They had an admirable oppor- 
tunity of bringing admonition and rebuke to bear upon these 
men when they were so near a settlement of the whole diffi- 
culty. Instead of that they went on and suspended them, and 
that brings out my second reason for not being able to sustain 
the action of Presbytery. My second reason is this: The 
Book of Discipline of the Presbyterian church in Ireland con- 
tains three grounds on which an appeal m ly be sustained : 1. 
The "first is inform ility in the proceedings of the inferior 
court. 2. The second is, disproportion of the sentence to the 
charge proved. Now, I hold that the censure inflicted was 
entirely disproportionate to the charge, even supposing the 
charge had been more fully proved than it was. Therefore I 
could not, on these grounds, conscientiously vote to sustain 
every part of the action of Presbytery, and I am glad that this 
matter has been put in such shape that I can vote, and at the 
same time not in any wise be associated with any of the 
parties in this dispute. In the second place, I have to say that 
there are many things in connection with the seven suspended 

ministers that I could not support. For example 

(The Moderator announced that the hour for recess had 
arrived.) 

Dr. JAMES KENNEDY: I have not troubled you in times 
past, and you will allow me just to finish. 

(By unanimous consent the speaker was allowed to continue 
his remarks.) 

Dr. JAMES KENNEDY: There are some things in the 
appeals of the young men that I would have difficulty in con- 
scientiously sustaining, as those views which I referred to on 
the part of Presbytery. One is this : That it does not matter a 
bit whether the East End Platform was an organization or 
not. That thing is not worth fighting about one moment. It 
was a wrong and a mistake, and it gave a view of obligation 
on the part of some of our members that I believe is incon- 
sistent with our standards. I could not, therefore, consci- 
entiously sign anything that seemed an approbation of the 
statement of that Platform. 

(The Court, upon motion, adjourned until to-morrow 
morning.) 

MORNING SESSION. 

Wednesday, June 10, 1891. 

The MODERATOR: At the time of adjournment yester- 
day evening, we had under consideration the adoption of the 
first part of the paper submitted by Rev. J. McCracken. 

Mr. WALTER T. MILLER: I wish to give a general idea 
of the amendments that I propose. I propose that the reso- 
lution shall be amended thus, and will move at the proper 
time that the word ; -Resolve" be omitted, and begin the 



WEDNESDAY, JUNE 10. 



465 



record something like this, "The Court having done," so and 
so, and "having laid the motion concerning A. W. McClurkin 
on the table, finds that, although in the review of these cases 
some informalities have appeared, these have not seriously 
affected the procedure and conclusions of Pittsburgh Presby- 
tery.'' The amendments, as those that are following will see, 
are, "and conclusions of Pittsburgh Presbyterv," and "finds." 

Dr. McALLISTEE : Will you allow me a word. I rec- 
ognize I am one of the parties removed, and it is simply to 
get at the matter that I wish to speak. We had this before 
us yesterday, and' the first point was up for discussion and 
was being discussed. If there are any amendments, amend- 
ments can be made when points come up. 

Mr. W. T. MILLER : I will make my amendment. I want, 
in the first resolution, to omit "Resolve," and say, "The 
Court having laid the motion concerning A. W. McClurkin on 
the table, finds." 

Mr. D. TORRENS : Is seems to me that would be a substi- 
tute for the resolution. 

Mr. W. T. MILLER : No, sir ; it is an amendment. The 
Moderator will decide whether it is germane or not. 

The MODERATOR : Let us have the resolution read as it 
is, and then let us have the amendment. 

(The clerk again read the first item.) 

The MODERATOR : State the amendment. 

Mr. W. T. MILLER : My first amendment is to begin the 
record in this form : Leave out he word "Resolve," and begin 
"The Court finds." The first proposition is to leave out the 
word ••Resolve," and begin the record, "The Court having 
laid the motion concerning A. W. McClurkin on the table, 
finds." 

Rev. J. C. SMITH: Let me suggest that the first part is 
unnecessary; we have adopted a record on that. 

Mr. W. T. MILLER : I want to make a new record ; this is 
a new day. k 'Finds, that although in the review of these 
cases some informalities have appeared, they have not 
seriously affected the procedure;" and then an additional 
amendment, "and conclusions of Pittsburgh Presbytery." 
"And it is further ordered that each of these appeals be dis- 
missed." 

The MODERATOR : The appeals are not before us. 

Mr. W. T. MILLER: "That each of these complaints be 
dismissed." Now, if some one will second my amendments, 
I will put them in exact form so that they shall appear 
properly, and then you can pass on the motion whether you 
will consider them. (Seconded.) 

Rev. D. S. FARIS : We have already decided that we would 
take these up separately. It seems to me he is taking them 
up now. 

Mr. W. T. MILLER : I have only got one. 



466 



STENOGRAPHIC REPORT. 



The MODERATOR : This is only an amendment as to the 
complaints. 
Rev. D. S. FARIS: Is it germane? 

The MODERATOR : It seems to be too much. If it is all 
to be noticed at once it will have to be looked upon as a sub- 
stitute. 

Mr. W. T. MILLER : Allow me to say, I do not change the 
sense. 

Rev. J. S. T. MILLIGAN: If he will confine his amend- 
ment to the first part I will second his motion; that is, to 
make a definite statement in regard to Mr. McClurkfrTs case 
being left out. 

The MODERATOR : His first amendment does not include 
that. 

Mr. W. T. MILLER : My first motion is,— I have to give the 
Court some understanding of why I propose all this, — to omit 
the word "Resolve." 

(Motion seconded and carried.) 

Mr. W. T. MILLER : My next motion then is to begin the 
record, "The Court having laid the motion concerning A. W. 
McClurkin on the table." 

The MODERATOR : That cannot be entertained, for that 
is a matter passed on yesterday. It was laid on the table. 

Mr. W. T. MDLLER : Can I not make it that so it will be 
clear in the future how the record begins this morning, "This 
morning the Court having done" so and so. 

The MODERATOR : That was done yesterday. 

Mr. W. T. MILLER : I know it was done yesterday. 

Rev. J. C. SMITH: Leave that out. 

Mr. W. T. MILLER : All right. I move that it be amended, 
in place of the word "Resolve," "The Court finds." 
(Amendment seconded.) 

Mr. W. T. MILLER : The words I propose to add are, "The 
Court finds." 

Dr. R. B. CAOTON: What are the words? 

Mr. W. T. MILLER : "The Court finds." 

Dr. R. B. CANNON" : I would second Mr. Miller's recom- 
mendation to read in this way : Although in the review of 
these cases some informalities have appeared, nevertheless 
they have not seriously affected the procedure and conclu- 
sions of Pittsburgh Presbytery ; and that the complaint of in- 
justice be dismissed. 

Rev. D. S. FARIS : I have a speech to make, and my speech 
will be in the shape of another amendment, but, of course, I 
do not propose it as an amendment, as it would not be in 
order just now: "We find there is no evidence of criminal 
intent on the part of Pittsburgh Presbytery in the trial of this 
case," or you can put in, "in the several cases;" I have not 
them here, but that can be added; "That although there is 
some informality in the prosecution of the libel there is no 



WEDNESDAY, JUNE 10. 



467 



ground for the complaint, and that it be dismissed. " I pro- 
pose that as an amendment of the motion we have before us r 
and as a division of the question. 

The MODERATOK : You will have to move to lay on the 
table first. Mr. Miller has moved an amendment, inserting 
the words, "The Court finds." That is the motion before the 
house. 

(The motion of Mr. Miller was then put and carried.) 

Rev. D. S. FARIS: Is there a motion before the house? If 
not, I move the-motion we have before us be amended in the 
way of a division. 

Mr. W. T. MILLER : I still have the floor. 

The MODERATOR : Let Mr. Miller state the remainder of 
his amendments. 

Rev. J. R. THOMPSON : We do not understand Mr. Miller's 
motion. Some of us could not vote at all. I am sure I cannot 
understand it. 

The MODERATOR : Mr. Miller has the floor. 

Mr. W. T. MILLER: "Although in the review of these 
cases some informalities have appeared;" I wish to move that 
the word ''they" be changed to "these." 

The MODERATOR : It is very difficult to state just the 
exact addition to this motion unless the whole motion is read 
as it has been so far amended. 

Mr. W. T. MILLER : I will read it. 

The MODERATOR : Read the whole motion clearly so the 
Court can understand the condition of the motion as it now is. 

Mr. W. T. MILLER (reads) : "Although in the review of 
these cases some informalities have appeared, these have not 
seriously affected the procedure." I have another amend- 
ment coming. 

The MODERATOR : You can only make one amendment 
at a time. 

Rev. J. McCR ACKEN" : It is simply a question of grammar. 
The MODERATOR : If there is no objection that will be 
inserted. 

(There was no objection, and it was so ordered.) 

Mr. W. T. MILLER: After the word "procedure," I move 
to insert the words, "and conclusions of Pittsburgh Presby- 
tery." 

(Motion seconded and carried.) 

Rev. D. S. FARIS : I want to make my motion now, and I 
will make a remark in favor of it after I offer it. "First. We 
find that there is no evidence of criminal intent on the part of 
Pittsburgh Presbytery in the trial of the complaint before us. 
Second. That although there was some informality in the 
prosecution of the libel, there is no ground for the complaints, 
and that they be dismissed." ISTow I will give the reason for 
making this motion. 

(Motion seconded.) 



468 



STENOGRAPHIC REPORT. 



The MODERATOR : That will have to be offered as a sub- 
stitute. 

Rev, D. S. FRAIS : I intend to make a division of the ques- 
tion. I intended to call for a division, but I thought in ex- 
amining the motion at first made that it could not be divided. 

The MODERATOR : The motion to be made is a motion to 
lay the former motion on the table for the purpose of enter- 
taining the substitute. 

Rev. D. S. FARIS : I make that motion. 

(Seconded and lost.) 

Mr. W. T. MILLER : My next amendment is to insert the 
word "Ordered." I read from the beginning: "The Court 
finds that although in the review of these cases some in- 
formalities have appeared, these have not seriously affected 
the procedure and conclusions of Pittsburgh Presbytery; 
Therefore, it is ordered that these complaints be dismissed." 

The MODERATOR : What is the motion now? 

Mr. W. T. MILLER: The motion is, that in place of the 
latter part of these resolutions 

The MODERATOR : What is it? 

Mr. W. T. MILLER : That it is -Therefore ordered that 
the complaints of injustice and wrong be dismissed." "It is 
therefore ordered that the complaints of each of them of in- 
justice and wrong be dismissed." 

The MODERATOR : You move those words be inserted in 
place of what? 

Mr. W. T. MILLER: Of the words, "That the complaints 
of injustice and wrong be dismissed."' 
(Motion seconded.) 

Rev. J. C. SMITH: This is not specific enough, because we 
do not wish to have all the complaints dismissed. 

The MODERATOR: The other case is not before us. 
Please state that amendment specifically again. 

Mr. W. T. MILLER : "Finds that although in the review of 
these cases some informalities have appeared, these have not 
seriously affected the procedure and conclusions of Pittsburgh 
Presbytery. It is therefore ordered that the complaints of 
injustice and wrong be and are hereby dismissed." 

Dr. T. P. STEVEXSOjST : Let us understand that this is 
simply a motion that this resolution, if it be adopted, shall be 
adopted in this form ; that the vote which is now to be taken 
does not dismiss the complaints, but is imply a question of 
verbiage; that when the whole motion shall be adopted, this 
particular part of it shall stand in this form. 

The MODERATOR : That is the amendment you now pro- 
pose. "It is therefore ordered." 

Mr. W. T. MILLER : Yes, sir. 

Rev. P. H. WYLIE : I would like to hear Dr. Stevenson's 
explanation. 

The MODERATOR : His explanation was, that voting on 



WEDNESDAY, JUNE 10. 



469 



this does not adopt the whole proposition or resolution, but 
simply adopts the amendment, "It is therefore ordered." 

Rev. D. S. FARIS: lam opposed to this amendment. It 
does not relieve the motion at all of its complication. The 
motion is complicated, and ought to he divided. There are 
two things in it. The first thing in the motion is, the injustice 
and wrong of Pittsburgh Presbytery, and the next thing is the 
informality. Now, in regard to the injustice and wrong the 
Pittsburgh Presbytery have no right to vote; they cannot 
waive the right for they have no right. In regard to the in- 
formality they can waive the right because they have the 
right. My motion was designed for the purpose of dividing 
so that we might vote according to our minds on the first and 
on the second part. I am therefore opposed to the motion we 
have before us because it leaves the complication just as it 
was. 

The MODERATOR : The motion before us is simply an 
amendment, "It is therefore ordered." That is the only 
motion before us. 

(The Moderator then put the motion to a viva voce vote, 
but was unable to decide whether the motion was carried or 
lost, and called for a standing vote, upon which the motion 
was carried.) 

Rev. D. S. FARIS: I move the motion be divided so as to 
allow the injustice and wrong to be voted on in the first 
place, and the informality in the second, so that we can ex- 
clude the Pittsburgh Presbytery on the first and admit them 
if they see fit to vote on the second. 

The MODERATOR: In what form will that motion have 
to be stated? 

Rev. D. S. FARIS : I would have to make some changes to 
avoid presenting the form that has been presented : ''First. 
That there is no evidence of criminal intent on the part of 
Pittsburgh Presbytery in the trial of these cases. Second. 
That though there is some informality in the prosecution of 
the libel, there is no ground for the complaint, and that it be 
dismissed." I am willing, of course, to introduce the judicial 
language, but I do think the thing ought to be divided. 

The MODERATOR : That would be in the nature of a sub- 
stitute. 

Rev. D. S. FARIS : Can we not call for a division substan- 
tially like this? 

The MODERATOR : Read the resolution as it now 'stands 
and see how the division can be made. 

(Paper read.) 

Rev. D. S. FARIS: I have the amendment, that it be 
amended to read: '-That there is no evidence of criminal 
intent on the part of Pittsburgh Presbytery in the trial." 

Rev. J. McCRACKEN : I oppose that amendment. I am 
opposed to it because in preparing this and submitting it t€> 



470 



STENOGRAPHIC REPORT. 



one or two brethren, one point that we had in view was to 
keep out all this personal element. We did not want to bring 
up any reflections upon any person in the judicial action, or 
the shadow of a reflection/ I think it ought not to be enter- 
tained. 

Eev. N. E. JOHNSTON : If we bring in these amendments, 
one after another, we will be here another whole day. Now, 
I think w r e can vote on these resolutions in the spirit of con- 
ciliation, and I hope we will vote down everything and give 
both parties a chance- 
Rev. D. S. FARIS: i want to state a point I have not 
brought out, in regard to the right of the Presbytery on the 
froor of this Synod. 

Prof. WILLSON : Is Pittsburgh Presbytery removed? 
The MODERATOR : Yes, sir. 

Rev. D. S. FARIS : My idea is not particularly in regard to 
this case, but in regard to the precedent we are making. You 
will remember when I was moderator of the court, I made a 
decision upon this point, and an appeal was taken, and the 
court sustained the moderator. That makes one precedent. 
That put down one post. Our Book says that in complaints, 
as well as in appeals, the Presbytery shall vote, except in the 
case of injustice and wrong, charged by the appellants. Now, 
we are about to make another precedent. I hold that my 
position was wrong. I was convinced of that wrong chiefly 
by Rev. J. 0. K. Milligan, in a private letter, and in an article 
which he published in the Ba?i?ier^ from which a portion was 
read yesterday. 

Now, the importance of my resolution is not so much in 
this case as in cases that will come in the future. If we 
throw Pittsburgh Presbytery out in this whole motion, we 
have established a precedent that we can never reverse, and 
large Presbyteries may be concerned in questions in which 
they, voting with the majority of Synod, would turn it one 
way, and the Synod, voting without them, would turn it the 
other way. I want to provide against anything of that kind 
in the future, for it may even, some time or other, affect the 
testimony of the Reformed Presbyterian church. I think 
you ought therefore to allow this amendment to go in divi- 
ding the question, so that we can vote on the injustice and 
wrong, shutting off Pittsburgh Presbytery, and then vote on 
the complaint, and allow them either to vote or to waive their 
right as they se fit. 

The MODERATOR : State your amendment. 

Rev. D. S. FARIS : I do not think I can state it in consist- 
ency with the resolutions you have on the table ; but I can 
give you the substance as I have written it: -'That there is 
no evidence of criminal intent on the part of Pittsburgh Pres- 
bytery in these trials. " 

The MODERATOR : This is moved as an amendment. 



WEDNESDAY, JUNE 10. 



471 



Kev. P. H. WYLIE : I oppose it for the very reason that 
Mr. Fans offers it. Now, we have heard during- the past few 
days that the motive of those who held the East End Meeting 
was not impugned, and that that did not come in in this case. 
I do hold that a complaint cannot be sustained against Pres- 
bytery without impugning the motives of Presbytery. I do 
not think it is wise to set a precedent of that kind; in order 
to sustain a complaint of injustice and wrong we must neces- 
sarily impugn the motives of Presbytery in their action. 

Rev. J. S. T. MILLIGAN: I indorse the remarks that have 
been made. I was going to say that I do not see how this can 
divide the motion. Then, moreover, it certainly is out of 
place for the Presbytery to vote upon any part of this reso- 
lution we have before us, because the complaint bears against 
the whole procedure, and therefore, although in some of its 
forms it is in the form of an appeal, yet an appeal may contain 
the elements of a complaint. JN"ow, my recollection in regard 
to the adoption of our rule was, that it would be wrong to 
rule out a lower court in the set lenient of a question of law; 
but in all matters of procedure the lower court ought to be 
excluded from voting. That, I know, was the understanding 
in the adoption in 1863 of our Book of Discipline. I think it 
would be very wrong to exclude a lower court from settling a 
principle or a matter of law ; but so far as procedure is con- 
cerned the court is certainly excluded. 

The motion made by Mr. Faris was then put to vote and 
declared lost. The motion before the Court was then read, as 
follows: "The Court finds that although in the review of 
these cases some informalities have appeared, these have not 
seriously affected the procedure and conclusions of Pitts- 
burgh Presbytery; It is therefore ordered that the complaints 
of injustice and wrong be and hereby are dismissed." 

The ASSISTENT CLERK: I would like to make a single 
remark before that is put to vote. If the complaints are dis- 
missed, the responsibility rests in one place; if the complaints 
are not dismissed, the responsibility rests in another. In my 
own judgment the complaints have not been sustained, and I 
think the Synod snould so vote. Suppose, now, that the 
complainants have made their case. These four things 
would then be true : 1. That the Pittsburgh Presbytery is 
guilty of injustice and wrong in suspending these ministers 
for a period of five months. 2. The Pittsburgh Presbytery is 
guilty of the dissensions and distractions in these various 
congregations. 3. The Pittsburgh Presbytery is then guilty 
of the distractions, dissensions and heart-burnings through- 
out the church. 4. The Pittsburgh Presbytery would then 
be guilty of the wrong done to the Christian religion. I do 
not believe, Mr. Moderator and Members of this Court, that 
such serious responsibility rests upon the brethren of the 
Pittsburgh Presbytery. In my judgment they have removed 



4/2 



STENOGRAPHIC REPORT. 



every ground of injustice and wrong, as it has been presented 
by the complainants, and that they have completely refuted 
all grounds or arguments which have been presented on that 
line, and I do hope, therefore, that this resolution will pass. 

Rev. J. C. SMITH: It is necessary that there shall be some 
amendment. It has been stated that the case of Mr. MeClur- 
kin is not included in this. That is not true. We laid on the 
table a motion to take up Mr. McClurkin's case for the pur- 
pose of entertaining this substitute, and this substitute rules 
that out, and it will never come in again. So that this will 
dismiss all the complaints, Mr. McClurkin's as well as all the 
rest. Therefore we must modify this, "that this complaint of 
injustice and wrong be dismissed in the cases of H. W. Reed" 
and the others. Therefore, I move that that be inserted. 
(Motion seconded.) 

The MODERATOR : You move the insertion of the names? 
Rev. J. C. SMITH: Yes, sir. 

The MODERATOR : The motion is, that this be amended 
by inserting the names of the parties, including all except 
Mr. McClurkin. 

(The motion was then put to vote and carried.) 

Dr. J. C. K. MILLIGAN : I do not wish to detain the 
Court, but I want to say a very few words. When I under- 
stand that the carrying of this motion sustains the Presbytery 
and condemns the young men, so far as that is concerned, I 
cannot conscientiously vote for it because in my judgment the 
Presbytery did not conform in the trial with the prescription 
of Christ in regard to dealing with these young men. They 
did indeed have prayer, and call for statements from them. 
But, you will notice that behind them, and in their hand, was 
the whip of discipline ; and so far as the record is concerned 
there was no effort made by the Court to bring these young 
men to repentance. I object to this motion again because in 
the carrying forward of the case there was certainly wrong 
on the part of Presbytery, in that the admissibility of the libel 
was decided upon without a single witness named in the libel, 
and without any confession verified and attested on the rec- 
ord. And the whole case, as it is before us to-day, shows that 
the case was not only admitted but decided without one 
particle of testimony, either in regard 1o Mr. McClurkin, or 
these young men. And I object still further that the relev- 
ancy of the libel was decided without allowing the young 
men to plead on the relevancy, as our law demands they 
shall; and that the relevancy of the libel was decided on the 
ground that the charge named in the libel, divisive courses, 
was relevant to censure, while our Book, and the law of Pres- 
byterianism, decide that relevancy shall be determined by the 
specifications sustaining the charges. And then, still further, 
I condemn the action of Presbytery because in the procedure 
they convicted these brethren without one shadow of proof. 



WEDNESDAY, JUNE 10. 



473 



On the records there is not one particle of proof presented. 
Whatever may have been before the Court, we are not to de- 
termine, but before us there is no evidence on which they 
were convicted. And then, still further, 1 oppose this motion 
because these brethren were suspended on that conviction 
that was unjust, after they had appealed and while they were 
in the process of carrying it up and bringing it forward to 
this Court; thus nullifying all justice and opposing the very 
law which Dr. McAllister himself read in this Court, that a 
suspension which has been passed is null if the appellants are 
in the process of carrying and admitting it before the superior 
court. And I do hold that if this Court sustain this proceed- 
ing of the lower court they not only do not save the Covenan- 
ter church, but they do injustice and wrong, they rend the 
church, they drive away these young men, they discourage 
other young men, they weaken the hands of the church in all 
its departments, and leave us trembling on the brink of ruin. 
I demand that this Court shall at least do justice, whether the 
heavens stand or fall. 

Kev. J. C. SMITH: The Presbytery is to be sustained in 
this matter, although there are informalities. In regard to 
the proof of the matter, T admit the record of the Presbytery 
w T as defective, very defective; but as to the proof of the mat- 
ter it was before the Presbytery constantly, by the parties 
themselves. So that there was no ground for the Presbytery 
to do otherwise than to say that they were guilty of the matter 
of the East End Meeting. So that so far as that is concerned 
it w T as constantly admitted in their arguments through and 
through; and this Synod could only stultify itself by deciding 
otherwise. Now, the admissions and pleadings of a party are 
not certainly to be left out by any court at any stage. A party 
has his own case, and if he gives it away, that is his own 
fault. Another thing, in regard to the amount of censure and 
the manner in which it was carried out. I think there was 
some irregularity in this matter. I believe the Presbytery 
ought only to have suspended them until the final decision. 
Nothing less than that could be done because the Presbytery 
sustained the matter that pursuing divisive courses was rel- 
evant to censure, and then had decided that the charge was 
proved. Now, having decided these two things, thaf a cer- 
tain thing was relevant to censure, if proved ; then second, 
that that thing is proved, then their suspension was neces- 
sary. But, since they had appealed, I think they ought to 
have placed them only under suspension until the case could 
be finally issued. Or, I think it would have been better if 
they had offered a lower degree of censure ; but when they 
appealed, they could not do that. That cut them off from 
applying a lower degree of censure because they had rendered 
that impossible. But the Presbytery could not allow these 
persons, for the five or six months intervening, to enjoy their 



474 



STENOGRAPHIC REPORT. 



privileges. You could not do it with a single individual. It 
having been proved that they were guilty of a censurable 
offence, couki they be allowed to come to the Lord's table? 
Much less could they be ailowed to administer the sacrament 
of the Lord's supper when that had been proved. They must, 
therefore, necessarily have been put under disability until the 
matter shall be issued. But when they suspended them until 
repentance, I think that was going a little too far, and was 
informal to a certain extent. And yet it does not inflict in- 
justice upon them, because it is in the power of Synod to pre- 
vent that censure from going beyond the meeting of Synod. 

Mr. R. McAFEE: I am opposed to the motion now before 
us, for the following reasons : I believe that the Pittsburgh 
Presbytery had been guilty of injustice and wrong, and I be- 
lieve that it is the province of this Synod to say so. I do it 
upon the following grounds: 1st. Because the Presbytery 
failed to deal with them as Christian men. 2nd. Because the 
Presbytery allowed themselves to be controlled by the Elders' 
Convention. 3rd. Because the Presbytery deceived them in 
the Judicial Committee by pretending to settle the whole 
matter, by giving them the right hand of fellowship after 
getting their statements from them, which they afterwards 
used against them. 4th. Because they framed a libel against 
them without any evidence but their own statement. 5th. 
Because they condemned them without sufficient evidence, 
and upon insufficient grounds. 6th. Because of the severity 
-of the sentence imposed. Now, I want just to say a word or 
two on some of these matters, and I want to talk confiden- 
tially to this Synod, to the mi listers and elders. I want to 
know if they ask a house of God to proceed upon the same 
principles that the Pittsburgh Presbytery proceeded on? Do 
any of us deal with our brothers in the same way when we 
find they have been guilty of some crime, or of holding some 
opinion which brings them in conflict with the principles of 
the church? I know it is not ours, nor ever has been. If any 
case occurs I know what the session does. It sends a com- 
mittee, and it talks to these parties; it endeavors to convince 
them of their wrong, and to bring them to a sense of their 
duty. I am proceeding upon the supposition that these men 
were guilty of a crime. I do not believe it; however, I am 
arguing upon that ground. But I say that according to the 
statements of each and eveiy brother who appeared before 
this Synod, every young man said, had that plan been adopted 
there would have been no trouble before this Synod. Every 
one of them said that; and I have been brought into contact 
with these young men considerably in this Synod, and I find 
•every one of them was willing, had the proper means been 
brought upon them when thi- matter was first brought out, 
and they would have been brought in without any trouble. 
I say that on that ground Presbytery is guilty of injustice and 



WEDNESDAY, JUNE 10. 



475 



wrong in not pursuing this course: and I say it is the province 
of this Synod to say so. It is a matter I hope it will consci- 
entiously eay, they did not proceed upon the proper Chris- 
tian spirit in dealing with these cases. That is very evident 
to my mind. As I say. these young men deserve to be exon- 
erated on that ground. I proceed, however, to my fourth 
point, that is. that they framed a libel against them without 
any evidence but their own statement ; and it appears here 
that in one case there was not a statement to found their libel 
upon. 

Now, i that is a proper proceeding for a court of the 
Lord's house, then I do not know what is. Proceed with a 
libel without any evidence ! Why, I never heard of such a 
thing! It would not be permitted in a court of law. It would 
not stand for a moment there, and why should it stand in the 
chief court of Cod's house? I think this Synod should con- 
demn any such attempt on the part of Presbytery, I do not 
care what their ministers and elders may be. or who the3 T ma y 
be. And then, they condemned them without sufficient evi- 
dence, and upon insufficient grounds. That matter, I think, 
is brought before us here. l"do not see 

(Here the hammer fell.) 

Kev. J. MILLIGAN WYLIE : I have a question or two I 
want to ask on behalf of myself and one or two other breth- 
ren. One is. What is the relation between the complaints and 
the appeals'? If we should vote to not dismiss their complaint, 
what effect does that have on the appeal? 

Rev. J. C. SMITH: Xone whatever. 

Rev. J. MILLIGAX WYLIE : Then if the young men ap- 
pealed because of irregularities in bringing in the evidence, 
if we understand this injustice and wrong not to have this 
deep meaning that would attach to it outside of this technical 
language, and if the Presbytery did not take into account 
their appeal from irregularities, — are we allowed to vote with 
such an understanding as that? 

Rev. D. S. FARIS : You can vote against the Presbytery in 
this matter, and for them in the next, the Book says dis- 
tinctly. 

Rev. J. S. T. MILLIGAX: You can vote for them in this 
and for them in the next. 

Mr. D. TORREXS : I was going to say that aside from the 
injustice and wrong in the course of procedure it is strange to 
me that this Court should entertain for a moment the idea 
that there has not been wrong in the execution of the sen- 
tence after an appeal was taken. Reference has been made 
to authorities not in everybody's hands, — Moore's Digest, 
Hill's Practice, etc.,— but we have books that we accept as 
authority, and while reference was made, and I think properly 
made, to the word "removal,*' as against continuing to inflict 
the sentence after an appeal. I did not hear anybody refer to 



476 



STENOGRAPHIC REPORT. 



another section of the same book in which, I think, it is more 
explicitly set forth. On page 70 it says: "Presbytery in case 
of ministers, and the session in every other case, is the com- 
petent authority to commence and finish a process lor scan- 
dal, unless a reference or appeal be made to the superior 
judicatory.'" Now, that seems to my mind to be perfectly 
explicit. The Pittsburgh Presbytery not only commenced 
but they finished, as far as any court could go, and they sus- 
pended these men in the face of an appeal to this Court. 
Now, to mind, sir, that was not only contempt of this Court, 
carrying out that sentence after an appeal was taken, but it 
was a contempt of this Synod in trampling on this law, and 
for that reason, if for no other, it does seem to me that the 
action of that Presbytery in suspending these men should not 
be sustained. 

Rev. D. H. COULTER : I rise simply to say that we have 
heard all this pro and con for days and days and days, and I 
am not getting any new light, and I do not believe a single 
vote will be changed. We are losing precious time here at 
the very preliminary. Let us have this thing voted on. I 
could talk on this matter for hours and hours, but I think I 
have more good sense. 

The MODERATOR : There is just one* of two ways in 
which we can have the question, as long as men claim the 
floor to speak. We can have the question by setting a time 
for it, or we can have it by moving the previous question. As 
long as men claim the floor to speak, those were the only 
two ways in which we can have it. 

(Cries of "Question.") 

Rev. Mr. JOHNSTON: I want to say something to this 
Court that has not been said yet. We have had this before us 
now for about fourteen days. Now, to my mind, the whole 
gist of this question settles on one point; that one point is just 
simply this : Can a man live in the Covenanter church and 
hold an opinion, and draw all his arguments from the stand- 
ards of the church? That is the point in issue. That is the 
central point and prime factor in this whole question. Now, 
it may be admitted that there has been wrong done by the 
Presbytery. I say nothing at all about that, and I say nothing 
about whether it was right or wrong to issue the East End 
Platform. But my point is that, although a man has no right 
to argue against the standards of the church, a man has a 
right to live in the Covenanter church and to hold any opin- 
ion he pleases if he draws all his opinions from the standards. 
We had the Deacon question discussed in this church. Some 
said it was contrary to the standards, and every man drew his 
arguments from the standards, and no man was suspended. 
We had the Jury question discussed, on the same principle. 
Some again said it was destructive of the fundamental prin- 
ciples of the church, and every man drew his arguments from 



WEDNESDAY, JUNE 10. 



477 



the standards. Whe had the question discussed with regard 
to constitutional amendments, on the same principle, and 
every man drew his arguments from the standards. Indeed, 
there was not a man liable to be suspended. We have had 
the discussion of this point of the East End Platform. It is 
an opinion held by certain men, and to this day there has 
never been an argument made drawn from anything else than 
the standards of the church. If we did not libel men for 
views on the Jury question and on the Deacon question, you 
have no right to libel and suspend men for holding an opinion 
and arguing on that opinion, drawn from the standards of the 
church. They all stand or fall together, and it is too late to 
libel a man for an opinion. 

Dr. T. P. STEVEXSOX: I rise to a point of order : This 
discussion ought not to travel beyond the bounds of this first 
resolution. I was exceedingly loath to interrupt the brother 
who has last spoken, but I make the point of order at this 
time in order that the matter which would be in place on the 
second resolution may not be introduced on the first. 

The MODERATOR: The Moderator wishes to make a 
statement. The remarks do not bear on the motion before us. 
There is just one thing before us, and that is the dismissal of 
the complaints of injustice and wrong. 

Kev. T. P. ROBB : I simply rise to move the previous 
question. 

Eev. Mr. CAKLISLE : I for one want to know how 7 far this 
complaint covers. If this complaint covers the severity of 
the sentence, I will vote one way ; if this complaint does not 
cover the severity of the sentence I perhaps may vote an- 
other. 

The MODERATOR: It has nothing to do with the sentence 
at all. 

Rev. Mr. CARLISLE : The motion simply has reference to 
the complaint of injustice and wrong. 

Rev. J. S. T. MILLKxAX: It includes the severity of the 
sentence as well as anything else. 

Rev. D. S. FARIS : The question is shall we vote on the 
question or discuss it longer. 

The MODERATOR : The question is on calling the previous 
question. (The motion calling for the previous question was 
then put to a standing vote and declared carried.) 

Dr. H. P. McCLURKIN": I will enter my dissent against 
this motion for the previous question at this time for reasons 
given. 

Rev. J. F. CARSON": I call for the ayes and noes on the 
adoption of the first resolution. 

(A motion was made, and seconded and carried, to allow 
members one minute in which to explain their votes. The 
first resolution, as amended, was again read.) 



473 



STENOGRAPHIC REJfOKT. 



Mr. W. T. MILLER : I want in there the words, "and hereby 
is," and I make that motion. 

The MODERATOR : No motions are in order. 

Rev. J. R. J. MILLIGAN : I would like to ask how much of 
my complaint comes in under this 

The MODERATOR : The clerk will call the roll. 

Rev. J. R.J. MILLIGAN : I am to have no answer? 

Dr. T. P. STEVENSON : I think that is a fair question. 

The MODERATOR : Has the Moderator power to answer 
it? 

Rev. J. R.J. MILLIGAN ; If the Moderator has not the 
authority to answer who has? 

The MODERATOR ; The Moderator made no reference to 
authority ; but the question is simply the understanding of the 
motion and what it includes. The Court has to pass upon it, 
and of course understands it. 

Dr. T. P. STEVENSON: What is now before us, as I 
understand it, is this : we are voting on these points in so far 
as they charge Pittsburgh Presbytery with injustice and 
wrong, and with such measure of injustice and wrong as 
would call down the disapproval, or even the censure of this 
Synod upon the Presbytery. 

Dr. R. B. CANNON: A question of order. The previous 
question has prevailed and there can be no discussion. 

The MODERATOR: It is simply an explanation. The 
explanation is in order. It is simply the meaning of the 
motion, and the motion can certainly be explained before we 
vote upon it. 

Rev. J. R. J. MILLIGAN: I ask if that includes my 
complaint against injustice on account of being suspended 
after my appeal, and injustice on account of being convicted 
on a libel that has no testimony. 

A MEMBER : The members of Pittsburg Presbytery have 
been removed. 

A MEMBER : I would like to have an explanation, and I 
insist on a explanation. 

The MODERATOR : What do you want explained? 

The MEMBER : What does this injustice and wrong in- 
clude? Does it include everything that the young men have 
brought fortfi charging Pittsburgh Presbytery with injustice 
and wrong? 

The MODERATOR : It simply includes this : Whether there 
has been such injustice and wrong on the part of Pittsburgh 
Presbytery as would call down the disapprobation of this 
Court, and the censure of this Court, upon Pittsburgh Pres- 
bytery. 

Rev. J. F. CARSON : Does this then include the question 
of the suspension after the appeal had been taken? Or is that 
covered by some other resolution? 

Rev. J. S. T. MILLIGAN : Certainly it is included. 



WEDNESDAY. JUNE 10. 



47£ 



Rev. J. F. CAESOX: Then the dismissal of the complaints 
would include 

The MODEEATOE : It includes the dismissal of the com- 
plaint on every ground which has "been brought before this- 
Court. 

Eev. D. S. FAEI8 : I believe we must have a division of 
this question. One thing is the wickedness of Pittsburgh 
Presbytery, and another thing is whether upon the whole 
their informality has been such as to hinder us from dis- 
missing the case. There ought to be a division. 

(The clerk then proceeded to call the roll, and during the 
voting the following members made remarks in explanation 
of their votes.) 

Eev. THOMAS AC HE SOX : As I have not been satisfied all 
through the trial with the way in which the evidence was se- 
cured against the young men for their condemnation in the 
Presbytery; and while I am not prepaied to sustain every 
claim with regard to injustice and wrong, on the part of the 
young men. I think there is some ground for saying there 
was injustice and wrong, and I vote *\No." 

Eev. J. M. AEMOUE : I would like to go on record as 
heartily commending the action of Pittsburgh Presbytery up 
to the part of their great breach of faith in failing to follow 
out ancl accept the basis of settlement agreed upon by the 
Judicial Committee. I would like to go upon record now and 
for all time as opposing the action of Pittsburgh Presbytery 
in the subsequent proceedings. Xow, my difficulty is, if I 
vote -Xo.'" I shall be interpreted as disapproving of all that 
Pittsburgh Presbytery did. TVith this understanding I vote 
•*Xo." that I do not approve of the action after that point. 

Eev. J. O. BAYLES : Mr. Moderator, I desire to vote 
•■Aye*' in the spirit in which these resolutions are offered; 
but I cannot dismiss from my mind that this Presbytery did 
wrong in listening to newspapers reports and memorials 
against their brethren. In the second place, in galvanizing 
into life and magnifying the conviction; and in the third 
place. I feel that that Judicial Committee and Presbytery 
ought to have stood by that agreement. I am constrained to 
vote ••Xo.'" 

Eev. J. A. BLACK: With the distinct understanding that 
this does not affect the severity of the sentence I vote "Aye." 

Mr. D. BOYD : I have endeavored to look at this case from 
beginnino; to end as I think in an unprejudiced light, and I 
cannot see in their proceedings, all they have done, that there 
is sufficient ground to call down the censures of this Court 
upon Pittsburgh Presbvterv. I therefore vote ^Aye.'' 

Eev. J. W. F. CARLISLE : I wish to be understood as op- 
posed to the East End Platform. I believe Pittsburgh Pres- 
bytery had just rights to institute judicial proceedings; hut 
because there has been too much hearsay testimony, leaving 



480 



STENOGRAPHIC REPORT. 



misunderstanding, and the suspension, root and branch, I 
vote "No." 

Rev. J. F. CARSON" : I vote "No" because there was in- 
justice and wrong in the manner of securing evidence against 
these young men; second, There was injustice and wrong in 
Presbytery admitting the libel without it containing the 
names of any witnesses; third, Because there was injustice 
and wrong in suspending these men after they had taken an 
appeal to the superior judicature of the church. I therefore 
vote "No." 

Rev. E. M. COLEMAN : There are many things in this 
trial on both sides that I cannot indorse, and since a single 
vote cannot be divided in this case, I vote "Aye." 

Rev. Mr. ELSE Y : I can say and will say here that I have 
not been satisfied with the East End Meeting of the young 
men, and have never approved of it; but in all.the movements 
against the young men I have been displeased ; I have felt 
that I could divide my own congregation acting in that way. 
I could tear down my work entirely, because of what I con- 
ceive to be the proceedings of Pittsburgh Presbytery against 
these young men. With no evidence of any following out of 
the benediction of our Master as peace makers, I must and do 
vote "No." 

Rev. D. S. FARIS : I would not explain, except to answer 
the arguments given in explanation by the rest. I vote 
"Aye,'" first, Because the testimony, however informal is 
real; it came out at the beginning of the trial; it came out 
again in opposing the relevancy and was ruled out. It was 
informal but real. Second, Because relevancy being de- 
termined, suspension, (informal suspension) takes place im- 
mediately from that point onward until the trial is settled. 
The suspension, indeed, need be pronounced in no other way 
than by the Moderator stating what the law is. They would 
have been suspended without any motion. I vote "Aye." 

Rev. J. M. FOSTER : I wish to go on record as being ab- 
solutely opposed to the East End Platform. I wish to go on 
record as being opposed to the holding of that Meeting. I 
am persuaded, however, that too much has been made out of 
it. To my mind a mole hill has been made into a mountain. 
I think the sentence was excessively severe. Upon that point 
I vote "No." 

Rev. Mr. FRENCH: I wish it distinctly understood that I 
take no part whatever in the East End Platform. I do not 
believe in any of its planks. I wish it understood that I 
believe the East End Platform was a mistake, and that the 
East End Meeting was a mistake. But in the face of so many 
misunderstandings on the part of Presbytery and on the part 
of the young men, I am constrained to vote "No." 

Mr. HENDERSON: Mr. Moderator I have not said any- 
thing before this Synod up to this time, not being a public 



WEDNESDAY, JUNE 10. 



481 



speaker. But I just think these young men have done wrong, 
and I refer to the case of Ahah and Elijah. When Ahab met 
Elijah he asked this question: "Art thou he that troubleth 
Israeli"' The old prophet said, "No, hut you and your father's 
house, in that ye have departed from the commandment of 
God." I think these young men have broken the law of the 
church and followed a divisive course, and therefore 1 vote 
"Aye," believing that Presbytery had a right to proceed 
against them. 

Rev. Mr. HOUSTON: I would like to vote "Aye," but I 
cannot. I am not in sympathy with the East End Meeting. 
I attended the Elders' Convention, and if I should vote "Aye" 
on this motion I would be in duty bound to libel the elders 
for that meeting which they held. I attended the Pittsburgh 
Presbytery at the meeting that suspended the five ministers 
and libeled the Kev. J. R. J. Milligan and Rev. A. W. Mc- 
Clurkin; and I have heard the triaHn this Court, and I am 
conscious in my own mind that there has been injustice and 
wrong carried on by this Court, and I vote "No." 

Rev. N. R. JOHNSTON: I wxmld say that I hardly know 
how to vote, i think some of the appellants had some reasons 
to complain, one strong reason ; but the preponderance is so 
largely in favor of Presbytery that I cannot vote in any other 
way than "Aye." 

Rev. S. D. JOHNSTON: We have accepted in this first 
article that there have informalities. Informalities or even 
irregularities, if they are severe enough are ground for com- 
plaint. One of the representatives of Pittsburgh Presbytery 
introduced an informality or irregularity, if you wish to call 
it such, upon the floor of Synod. We passed a motion of dis- 
approval of his action. Therefore, I think there have been 
sufficient informalities and irregularities of such a character 
that there is ground for a complaint of injustice and wrong. 
I vote "No." 

Mr. JOSEPH : Mr. Moderator, while I am not in sympathy, 
in every respect, with the adherents to the East End Platform, 
I think they have some cause for the charge of injustice and 
wrong and I am constrained to vote "No." 

Rev. JAMES KENNEDY : Mr. Moderator, I believe there 
were justifiable grounds for the Pittsburgh Presbytery to 
commence a process in the premises. I believe ^that. I 
believe, moreover, that the Presbytery did not intend any 
injustice or wrong, and if there was injustice, if there was 
wrong, it was unintentional. Yet, at the same time, in 
following the whole course of the trial here there were many 
things that I believe were not only irregular but they were 
unpresbyterian and oppressive ; and I think they furnish a 
sufficient ground for the complaint, and therefore I vote 
"No." 

Rev. Mr. LATIMER: I vote "Aye" for this reason: If we 



482 



STENOGRAPHIC REPORT. 



can decide Pittsburgh Presbytery worthy of censure in this 
case because of informalities, then we will have to condemn 
the proceedings of almost every church court that ever takes 
action in any case. 

Mr. LOGAN: It has been stated that some informalities 
appear. We all acknowledge that. They are serious in- 
formalities, as I view the case, and they have most seriously 
affected the decision. The charge that has been made by 
Pittsburgh Presbytery laying the whole thing upon tkese young 
men, I believe untrue, and I wish to place myself on record 
as voting emphatically w, No." 

Mr. McAFEE : I want to say in addition to what I have 
already said, that from my intercourse with the people of the 
two cities here. I believe it to be the unanimous belief of the 
parties connected with this trial, that the Pittsburgh Presby- 
tery has been guilty of injustice and wrong. That is my own 
opinion, the opinion of members of the church with which I 
am connected, and I vote "^No." 

Dr. H. P. McCLURKLN : I vote "No" because I believe 
Pittsburgh Presbytery violated the following Scriptures : '-The 
man that is a heretic after the first and second admonition re- 
ject: knowing that he that is such is subverted and sinneth. 
being condemned himself." Also, this Scripture : "Against 
an elder receive not an accusation but before two or three 
wittnesses." Also, this Scripture: "Let everything be done 
decently and in order.** And I believe there was a violation 
of Matthew 18 : 15. I want to stand upon the whole law of 
the Lord Jesus. 

Eev. THOMAS McFALL : There is a doubt in my mind, 
from the speech of Rev. J. R. J. Milligan whether or not an 
organization wa« formed. With this exception I vote "Aye." 

Rev. D. McKEE : I vote ''Aye*' for the reason that I have 
examined this from the commencement. I regard the Pres- 
bytery as having sufficient ground for commencing process. 
They would have been negligent in the performance of their 
duty if they had not commenced this process. It appears 
they admitted the fact, at least a number of them, (of course 
I do not refer to the exception,) in the presence of the Court. 
I think Presbytery exercised a great deal of wisdom and a 
great deal of compassion in the manner in which they con- 
ducted the trial. In regard to the severity of the sentence, it 
is an admitted fact that the moment the libel was served upon 
them they were suspended. I speak now on the authority of 
Prof. Willson and Dr. Wylie. The question was raised in 
our own Presbytery in Philadelphia, and such was their 
decision, that the moment the libel is served the party is sus- 
pended ; he is laid under disability until that libel is settled : 
hence the suspending afterwards was only carrying out 

(Here the hammer fell.) 

Rev. Mr. McFARLAXD : After all the evidence that I have 



WEDNESDAY, JUNE 10. 



483 



heard brought forward by the Pittsburgh Presbytery to prove 
their case against these young ministers, and when I take this 
and place it alongside of what I know of the principles and 
practice of the Covenanter church, — the old Covevanter 
church, both in this country and in the old country, — there is 
no cause of complaint of injustice and wrong having been 
done. And whilst it is claimed that this trial, brought on by 
the Pittsburgh Presbytery, and their action in the matter, has 
been a cause of dissension in the church, and has brought 
great trouble into the church, and it might be said our vote 
is to help carry that out to the bitter end, yet, I believe we 
are in duty bound to give the church the vote we think is 
right, and so I most emphatically vote, "Aye."' 

Eev. J. S. T. MILLIGAN : I wish to say that I vote "No" 
in direct opposition to the law presented by brother McKee ; 
that while that was the old rule, in the adoption of the new 
rule there could be no suspension until an ultimate decision 
was reached, except a precautionary suspension, which must 
be in form, the parties retaining their relation to the church. 
If the circumstances were so aggravated they could be put 
under a formal precautionary suspension. 

Rev. R. C. MONTGOMERY: I understood Presbytery had 
only one basis of agreement. I understood also that that 
basis of agreement was the basis presented by the Judical 
Committe amended, and that made the resolutions presented 
by a member of the Court, or, at least, was the natural result 
of those resolutions. And l understood that J. R. J. Milligan 
was not present at that Meeting. I would vote "Aye" with 
the exception of J. R. J. Milligan. 

Rev. JAMES PATTON: Presbytery had been guilty of 
some informalities, but 1 feel that there has been sufficient 
grounds for proceeding against these young men to justify me 
in voting "Aye." 

Rev. THOMAS PATTON: I vote "Aye" because I am con- 
vinced that the Pittsburgh Presbytery were very lenient before 
they resorted to more severe measures. 

Rev. E. M. SMITH: Mr. Moderator, I do not wish to vote 
on any of these questions. I have concluded I ought not to 
remain any longer in our church, as I have not the conviction 
I believe her ministers ought to have, and I intend to resign 
my place on next Sabbath. 

Rev. J. C. SMITH : I vote "Aye," nothwithstanding the 
fact that I think the Pittsburgh Presbytery should not have 
suspended until repentance, but only temporarily; inas- 
much as it does not necessarily work injustice to them, I vote 
"Aye." 

Rev. J. A. SPEER : My verdict is based upon the evidence 
before this Court and I vote "No." 

Rev. R. M. SOMMERVILLE : As it seems to me there was 
not unfrequently during the course of the trial, harshness in 



484 



STENOGRAPHIC REPORT. 



dealing with these suspended brethren, but evidently no in- 
tention of doing them injustice and wrong, and on the distinct 
understanding that the resolution refers only to the method 
of Presbytery's procecure, but does not touch the severity of 
the sentence, I vote "Ave." 

Rev. W. J. SPROULL : I am opposed to the East End 
Platforir, I desire that to be distinctly understood; but there 
are grave doubts in my mind whether there was not injustice 
and wrong in the procedure of Pittsburgh Presbytery, and 
since this vote includes everything, the sentence of suspension 
as well as the procedure previous to the suspension, I give the 
young men the benefit of the doubt and vote "jSTo." 

Dr. T. P. STEVEKSO^: I vote "Aye," because the errors 
in the process of the trial, whatever they were, are correctly 
described as informalities. The charges of deception and 
breach of faith have been triumphantly disproved, and the 
injunction in Matthew xvin was fulfilled in the work of Pres- 
bytery in the meeting on October ] 5th, and in the labors of 
the Judicial Committee. I vote "Aye." 

Dr. C. D. TRUMBULL: I want to say, I vote "Aye," in 
the first place because the East End Platform was revolution- 
ary in its character ; in the second place, it has never been 
disavowed, and was before Presbytery, as we have reason to 
believe, in Synod, and has been owned and acknowledged by 
these men, and on these principles I feel constrained to vote 
"Aye," believing there was no intention of injustice and 
wrong. 

Mr. JAMES WARNOCK : I wish to say that the matter on 
which we have to decide is what is brought before this Court, 
and when all is divested of personalities and personal expla- 
nations, there is but a very small case before us. The young 
men who presented their reasons for appeal and complaint 
did that which was right, and the Presbytery to my mind did 
not. I therefore most heartily vote "Ko." 

Rev. J. MILLIGAN WYLIE: I think it is hardly fair to 
require us to vote, since the question is not divided as Brother 
Faris would have it divided. I do believe there were irregu- 
larities in this matter, but since these have been explained to 
me, the censure that enters into the merits of the case, and in 
as much as it was manifest there were efforts at reconcilia- 
tion, and that this reconciliation was not effected by reason 
of lack of confidence in brethren, for which I do not think 
Pittsburgh Presbytery was any more to blame than them- 
selves, therefore, taking the whole merits of the case before 
me, I am constrained to vote "Aye." 

Rev. T. A. H. WYLIE : In my vote I wish it distinctly 
understood that I do not impugn the motives of those who 
acted in this case. I refuse to do that. I accept their state- 
ment that they had a sincere and strong desire to settle the 
whole matter, although on some occasions they manifested 



WEDNESDAY, JUNE 10. 



485 



that desire in a very strange way. But, I refuse to recognize 
these as mere informalities. I think the testimony that was 
taken, when it has been heard here that there was no testi- 
mony against these young men. was wrong. Therefore I vote 
"No." 

Eev. P. H. WYLEE: I will have to vote "No" on this 
question because, whilst I disapprove of the East End Meet- 
ing and its Platform, yet I think there should have been a 
reconciliation.accepte'd by Presbytery on the ground of the 
Committee's action. And then. I think, after they were found 
o;uiltv. the suspension was too severe. 

The MODEEATOE : The vote stands Ayes 96, Noes 37, 
The motion is carried. 

Eev. JOHX TEAS : I rise to a question of privilege. I do 
not feel, after the action taken here to-day, that I can consci- 
entiously remain in this church, and I wish to ask this Court 
to instruct my Presbytery to give me a letter of standing. I 
might give a number of reasons for this. I think it is better 
not" to do so. I hope the Court will take this action and fur- 
nish me a letter of standing. 

Eev. D. S. FAEIS: I move this matter be referred to the 
Kansas Presbytery. 

(Motion seconded and carried.) 

(The clerk read the second item as follows :) 

"Resolved, that the Eevs. H. W. Eeed, W. L. C. Samson, 
J. E. J. Milligan. 0. B. Milligan and E. M. Milligan. having 
fully and distinctly avowed their presence at the East End 
Meeting, and their responsibility for its published Platform, 
thus putting the facts of the case beyond question, their ap- 
peals be dismissed." 

Eev. D. S. FAEIS : I move that this be adopted. 

(Motion seconded.) 

Mr. W. T. MILLEE : I move as an amendment, in place of 
the word --Eesolve" it read -It is further ordered.*' 
(Motion seconded.) 

Eev. D. S. FAEIS: Let it begin the same as the other, 
••The Court finds." 

Mi-. W. T. MILLEE : I will accept that. 

Dr. E. B. GANNON: The members of the Court get up 
and address the Moderator, and look towards him. and'donot 
address the Court. The Court is the body they are address- 
ing, and there is so much noise we cannot hear. 

The MODEEATOE : The persons in the room will please 
keep order. The clerk will read the item again. 

(The clerk read the item, with the amendments. The Mod- 
erator then put the amendment to vote and declared it car- 
ried.) 

The MODEEATOE : The question is now on the whole 
proposition. The clerk will read the paper as amended. 
The CLEEK reads: --Second. The Court also finds that 



486 



STENOGRAPHIC REPORT. 



Eevs. H. W. Reed, W. L. C. Samson, J. R. J. Milligan, E. M. 
Milligan and O. B. Milligan, having fully and distinctly- 
avowed their presence at the East End Meeting, and their 
responsibility for its published Platform, thus putting the 
facts of the case beyond question, their appeals be dis- 
missed." 

Rev. D. S. FARIS : There is something ungrammatical 
there. 

The CLERK: "Therefore we dismiss." 

Rev. J. C. SMITH: The words that Mr. Miller introduced 
into the other ought to be introduced here, "It is therefore 
ordered." 

The MODERATOR : If there is no objection the words may 
be inserted by consent. 

Dr. JAMES KENNEDY : There was an additional clause 
or two. 

The MODERATOR : The rest belongs to what comes after. 

Mr. W. T. MILLER : It is improperly printed in the paper, 
it does not belong there. 

Dr. R. B. CANNON : It seems to me just to adopt that as it 
is is in some respects rather severe. It leaves the question so 
that it comes down on the young men probably in a way we 
do not intend. The latter part of this 

Rev. J. McCRACKEN : I want to explain. That is refer- 
red to in the last part. 

Dr. R. B. CANNON : That does not change my mind a 
particle. 

The MODERATOR: Dr. Cannon will state his objection. 

Dr. R. B. CANNON: It is here, "As the sentence has 
b een severely felt by the parties who have lain under it "for a 
period of five months," and it goes on to resolve that their 
suspension be now removed. 

The MODERATOR : That is no part of the motion before 
you. 

Dr. R. B. CANNON: No, sir. We have the dismissal of 
their case before us. 

The MODERATOR: That is not before the Court now. 
The question is simply on the proposition which was read. 

(By request the second item was again read. Five persons, 
the requisite number, called for the Ayes and Noes on the 
motion, whereupon the Moderator directed the clerk to call 
the roll.) 

The MODERATOR : Pittsburgh Presbytery has a right to 
vote on this motion. 

(During the calling of the roll the following persons, in 
giving their votes, made these explanations :) 

Rev. THOMAS ACHESON : Does the same rule apply in 
this vote as in the other as to explanations? 

The MODERATOR: Yes, sir. 

Rev. THOMAS ACHESON : As I said before, I believe 



WEDNESDAY, JUNE 10. 



487 



there was some injustice and wrong in the act of Presbytery. 
I did not approve of all the complaints that were made. I 
favor this resolution and vote "Ave." 

Rev. X. K. JOHXSTOX: There was no vote to allow ex- 
planations here. 

The MODERATOR: The Moderator ruled that explana- 
tions would be in order unless the Court would otherwise 
direct. 

Rev. J. 0. BAYLES: Had Presbytery disapproved of the 
Platform, and called the young men to account for it, I would 
have been with the Presbytery ; but, considering the state of 
the church, the feeling of these young men. their statements 
in the Judicial Committee, I feel that the charge of a heinous 
sin and scandal is too strong. For that reason I vote "Xo." 

Rev. J. A. BLACK: With the same understanding as I 
had in giving my last vote. I vote "Aye." 

Rev. Mr. CARLISLE : To express my personal disapproval 
of the East End Meeting and the publishing of the Platform, 
I am constrained on this resolution to vote -Aye." 

Rev. J. F. CARSOX : In view of the vote we have just had 
in Synod, and in view of the fact that I am going to leave the 
Reformed Presbyterian church as soon as your present libel 
is settled, I will not vote on this appeal, nor vote again in this 
Synod. 

Rev. J. C. K. FAR1S : I vote "Aye," among other reasons 
for this one : "The man that is a heretic after the first and 
second admonition reject; knowing that he that is such, is 
subverted and sinneth, being condemned himself." These 
gentlemen have been admonished by the last Synod, and by 
previous Synods, so that they have been particularly admon- 
ished once or twice, and this command says they should be 
"rejected." 

Rev. J. M. FOSTER : I still protest against the severity of 
the sentence. I vote "Aye'' as a protest against the East End 
Meeting. 

RevMV. P. JOHXSTOX: There are personal reasons why 
I do not wish to vote. 

Dr. JAMES KEXXEDY: The question in this clause being 
altogether different from what was in the former clause, the 
matter of their presence at a certain Meeting being unques- 
tioned. I think that there is every ground for answering that 
affirmatively. Therefore I vote "Aye." 

Rev. W. R. LAIRD : Mr. Moderator. I feel that it is scarcely 
proper for me to vote, not having heard the arguments. Shall 
I be excused by a vote of Synod? 

Rev. D. C. MARTIX: Mr. Laird was absent on account of 
sickness during a good deal of the time; I think he should be 
excused. 

(By consent Mr. Laird was excused from voting.) 

Dr. R. J. GEORGE : If you will allow me, as a question of 



488 



STENOGRAPHIC REPORT. 



privilege. I would desire to recall my vote, because of having 
acted in defence of Pittsburgh Presbytery. It did not occur 
to me when the Presbytery was restored that I was still under 
that disability, and I would ask you to allow me to recall the 
vote; the reason, however, to go in the Minutes. 

Dr. McALLISTEE : I just wish to have the matter under- 
stood, that when Brother George cast his vote he did not 
think of that, and I told him I could not vote on account of 
representing Presbytery, and he said he thought it would be 
better if we would both put ourselves on that ground. 

Rev. D. S. FARIS : I think they have no right to vote ac- 
cording to the Book. 

Dr. R. J. GEORGE : It was an oversight of mine. 

Mr. LOGAN : You are beginning now to have the church 
feel the effect of the suspense of the last five or six months. 
I wish to say here, that so far as I am concerned (I only speak 
for nryself) I wish to vote "No" from beginning to end 
against the action of Presbytery, because I lay it right at their 
door as to this distress to our Covenanter Zion. 

Mr. McAFEE : I want to say, Mr. Moderator. I represent 
on the floor of this Synod a congregation that contributes 
largely to the schemes of the church. I want to say that they 
have contributed more than one-tenth of what was given this 
year for the foreign missions. I want to say. also, that in re- 
gard to the other schemes of the church they have also done 
their share. And I want to say that they feel that injustice 
and wrong has been perpetrated upon these young men, and 
it is the feeling of our congregation, and I come instructed to 
tell this Synod so, that no" man sball be brought up for an 
opinion not contrary to the standards of our church. I want 
to say right here that I cannot answer for what that congre- 
gation will do. They desire that I should bring before'the 
Court their motives. They have been impugned before this 
Synod by one of the men who represented Pittsburgh Presby- 
tery, and I had no opportunity of replying to it at all. And I 
want to say I do not know what that congregation will do 
under this 

The MODERATOR : State vour reasons for your vote. 

Mr. MCAFEE : I vote ••Xo.'" - 

Dr. H. P. McCLURKIX : I want to say..Mr. Moderator. I 
vote '-No v because in my judgment the action of this Presby- 
tery was irregular from first to last. In their defence of their 
action in the Pastoral Letter they say they heard the Lord's 
voice in the form of judgment, and we are commanded to hear 
the Lord, and Him whom He hath appointed. They give the 
causes in that letter of God's w T rath, and they mention two 
causes: The first cause is, certain congregations have neg- 
lected discipline: and the second cause, a good many in the 
Reformed Presbyterian church have not supported National 
Reform. These are the causes of God's wrath that has gone 



WEDNESDAY, JUNE 10. 



489 



forth against us, exercised by that Presbytery in judgment. 
And this is the way to remove the cause of God's wrath 
against us ! If so, then I do not know anything about wisdom 
and judgment. 

Eev. J. M. McELHENNY: I vote "No" for the reason : I 
would rather stand with the Lord than the Eeformed Presby- 
terian church. 

Kev. K. C. KEED : I do not believe that there is anything 
in the East End. Platform that is necessarily contrary to the 
principles of our church, but because of the construction that 
has been put upon that Platform, and which seems to have 
been accepted, I vote "Aye." 

Mr. D. M. SLOANE : I do not think there is anything in 
that Platform that is contrary to the law and order of our 
church. I also think our congregation has been badly dealt 
with. I therefore vote "No." 

Eev. J. A. SPEEE: In view of all the facts before this 
Court I am firmly of the conviction that the degree of censure 
was excessive, and therefore I vote "No." 

Dr. J. W. SPEOULL: Is the second plank of the East 
End Platform opposed to and subversive of our position of 
political dissent? I listened with a great deal of attention to 
Mr. Eeed. and I regret that he did not state at the meeting of 
the Judicial Committee what he stated on the floor of Synod. 
But, taking everything into consideration, weighing as calmly 
and carefully as I could everything that has been said, I am 
compelled to answer that in my opinion it is. Second : Did 
these brethren give their approval of it. and have we the evi- 
dence they did? I am compelled to say that in my opinion 
thev did. For these reasons I vote "Aye." 

Mr. STEANAHAN: In the first place that East End Meet- 
ing was out of place and out of order. In the second place 
the Elders' Convention was out of place and out of order. If 
it had not been for that convention we would not have had 
the trouble to-day we have in the church. In the next place, 
the Judicial Committee made an agreement with these young- 
men, and that agreement was broken by the evidence before 
this Court, as far as I could understand the evidence. For 
this reason I vote "No." 

Eev. J. E. THOMPSON: I vote "No" for the following- 
reasons : In the first place the action of Pittsburgh Presbytery 
was illegal; they did not furnish us any written testimony on 
which to base a judgment that would convict these young 
men. There is not a word of testimony, signed by the wit- 
ness, in this Court. In the second place, because the sentence 
was unjust and severe, suspending the young men after they 
had appealed to Synod. In the third place, the votes of this 
Synod do not represent the votes of the people, and you will 
hear from the people before long. (Loud and prolonged 
applause.) v 



490 



STENOGRAPHIC REPORT. 



Dr. MCALLISTER : I claim to be heard as the pastor of 
this church. I simply declare that this is outrageous, after 
attention has been called to it so often. It is in character 
with the bluster that has marked all along the course of these 
proceedings. That outbreak is something concerning which 
due warning was given that it would not be tolerated here; 
and if there is any repetition of it, measures will have to be 
taken to see that it is suppressed. 

The MODERATOR: And if any members repeat the 
reasons given by Mr. Thompson they will be called to order; 
that is, I refer to the last reason he gave. 

Mr. WARTOCK: I wish to vote "Xo" for this reason. 
The congregation I represent is not divided. 157 members 
signed this petition that is on your table. It reads as follows : 

The MODERATOR : That is out of order. 

Mr. WARLOCK : That has been read, Mr. Moderator. 

The MODERATOR : Lt is not in order now. 

Mr. WARXOCK: I give this as my reason why I vote 
"ISTo." 

The MODERATOR: It is out of order. You may state 
your reasons but that is not in order. 

Prof. D. B. WLLSOST: Mr. Moderator, I was one of the 
prosecutors of this case in Pittsburgh Presbytery by appoint- 
ment and not by choice. I refrained from voting throughout 
the proceedings as a prosecutor, and this is now my first 
decisive vote. I was grieved at the result in Presbytery when 
it had to come; and I wish to say now, that I have the kind- 
est feelings for these young men; and still, with personal 
friendship for them, I vote '•Aye.'' 

Rev. J. RENWICK WYLIE : I understand this vote in- 
cludes two things, to dismiss their appeal from the finding of 
the sentence, and also their appeal from the execution of the 
sentence until after the meeting of Synod. While I believe 
that our Presbyteries could do nothing else but find these 
young men guilty, I have my doubts whether they have the 
right to immediately inflict the penalty until the meeting of 
this Synod. For this reason I decline to vote. 

Rev. T. A. H. WYLIE : I feel that in giving my vote I must 
also give a testimony to my admiration of the Christian char- 
acter of the members of the Reformed Presbyterian church, 
and my love for the church. But I vote "-No." 

Rev. P. H. WYLEE : I vote "Aye v on this question on the 
ground I have already stated, that I disapprove of the East 
End Meeting and its Platform. 

The MODERATOR : The vote stands, ayes 129, noes 26. 

Rev. D. S. FARIS : Is this the place to assign reasons for 
our vote, or should we wait until the next case is decided be- 
fore we assign reasons. 

The MODERATOR : Reasons were assigned in voting. 



WEDNESDAY, JUNE 10. 



491 



Rev. D. S. FARIS: I mean the reasons of the Court. This 
is the time? 

The MODERATOR: Yes, sir; this is the time. 

Rev. D. S. FARIS : I move then the following reasons as 
the reasons of the Court for the vote that has been taken. 
The reasons for the above decision are: 1. The holding of 
such a meeting as that at East End is wrong and contrary to 
the unity of the church, and without due regard to the 
authority of Synod. 2. The Platform itself is, in various 
parts, contrary to the principles and practice of the Reformed 
Presbyterian church. 3. The propagation of said Platform 
is divisive and destructive of true Christian liberty. 

(Motion seconded.) 

Dr. R. B, CAXXOX : Have we not substantially the same 
thing in the resolutions yet to follow? I think in the resolu- 
tions on the table there are specifications of the articles in the 
East End Platform, with a condemnation of them. I think 
that meets the case Brother Fari> brought up. 

Dr. T. P. STEVEXSOX : I move that this lie on the table 
until we take uxd the resolutions that are before us in this 
paper. (Motion seconded.) 

Rev. E. M. MILLIGAX: In view of the finding of this 
Court sustaining the sentence of Pittsburgh Presbytery, 
which declares me guilty of the heinous sin and scandal of 
pursuing a divisive course, in my own name and in the name 
of Rev. O. B. Milligan. I appeal from the decision of this 
Court to the bar of an enlightened Christian conscience, and 
place myself on trial in the Monongahela Presbytery of the 
United Presbyterian church. 

Rev. J. R. J. MILLIGAX: In view of the fact that this 
Court has sustained Pittsburgh Presbytery and found me 
guilty of following divisive courses, on a libel which did not 
contain a single particle of evidence or testimony ; in view of 
the fact that I have been suspended from the ministry and 
privileges of the Reformed Presbyterian church, after my 
appeal had been taken, I hereby and now appeal to Jesus 
Christ, the King and Head of the church, at Whose bar we 
will stand together, from Whose lips there shall come the 
decision from which there is no appeal ; I appeal to the 
Christian world, before which I will stand to receive their 
sentence and be admitted to another denomination, and with- 
draw from this church. I ask that there be given to me a 
transcript of the Minutes of this Synod in reference to my 
case. And here and now I declare to you that there are 
memories which are never to be forgotten ; there are associa- 
tions which are very strong; there is a relation between me 
and the people as pastor that is most dear and precious, but 
these are now broken, and 1 must say "Farewell." 

Rev. E. M. MILLIGAX: May I also ask that a letter and 
transcript be given to me? 



492 



STENOGRAPHIC REPORT. 



Rev. H. W. EEED : I wish hereby to enter my protest 
against the action of Synod dismissing our appeals, and to 
enter my appeal, first, to the Head of the church, the Lord 
Jesus Christ, before Whom we all will stand; and, second, to 
enter my appeal to the whole body of Christ, the Christian 
church, to whom we now go, and before whom we will plead 
our case. And I join with the others in asking from this 
Synod a transcript of the Minutes of our case, and a letter of 
our standing in the church, that I may be able to enter some 
one of the other Christian bodies. 

Rev. W. L. C. SAMSON: With Rev. J. R. J. Milligan's 
permission I would unite with him in his request. But before 
I bid farewell to the church in which I was born, the church 
to which I hoped to devote what little energy I had, I wish 
to thank you for the kind respect you have shown me in hear- 
ing my appeal, and I assure you that I shall leave this church 
with love in my heart, and wish that God's blessing, if it is 
His will, may be with her in the work that she may do. 

Rev. J. C. K. MILLIGAN: In my own name, and in the 
name of any who wish to join with me, I give notice of the 
fact of a dissent which shall be given in. 

Mr. WARNOCK : I wish to dissent also from the action of 
this Synod. 

Dr. JAMES KENNEDY: It must be very distressing to us 
all to have these statements by our young brethren. At the 
same time I want to say that these resolutions were drawn up 
as an ironical kind of peace making. Now, would it not have 
been better for these brethren to have waited till we come to 
the following resolutions where there is provision made for 
their restoration, and for removing the suspension. I hope, 
therefore, our young friends will re- consider the matter, and 
will withdraw, perhaps, some of the statements that they 
have made, and let us go on with this peace making, and see 
if we cannot all gradually get together f gain. It would be a 
very, very sad thing if we cannot all live together in the 
church we all have lived in from our infancy. 

The MODERATOR directed the clerk to read the next item 
of the paper, whereupon he read as follows; "As the conduct 
of this trial has brought to view misunderstandings, arising 
largely from want of confidence between the parties, which 
misunderstandings have unhappily complicated the case 

Rev. J. C. K. M1LLIGAN: Is not the case of Rev. A. W. 
McClurkin before the Court at this time? 

The MODERATOR: The point is well taken. Proceed 
with the reading of the article with reference to A. W. Mc- 
Clurkin. 

The CLERK read as follows: "Whereas, Rev. A. W. Mc- 
Clurkin has denied in this Court that he ever made any ac- 
knowledgment of responsibility for the East End Platform, 
and Pittsburgh Presbytery furnished no record of such state- 



WEDNESDAY, JUNE 10. 



493 



nient, and that Rev. E. M. Milligan had declared on the floor 
of the Synod that A. W. McClurkin had no part in the mak- 
ing of the Platform, Resolved, that this complaint be sus- 
tained and his case dismissed. ,r 

Eev. D. S. FARIS: I want to get before this Court now 
exactly how Mr. McClurkin's case stands. I think his case is 
a case of declinature. Perhaps a complaint was made, but it 
is the declinature that we have to deal with at the present 
time, and I would like to have his declinature and the reasons 
of it read, so that we can see how to proceed. 

Dr. MCALLISTER : That is just what I was about to insist 
upon, as representing the Presbytery. 

(The clerk then read the declinature of A. W. McClurkin, 
with the reasons for same.) 

Dr. MCALLISTER : Now, Mr. Moderator, due notice was 
given to Mr. McClurkin at the time that he notified the Pres- 
bytery he was about to enter his declinature as to the law of 
the church upon this point. And let me bring the points of 
law before this Synod. On page 84 we have the matter 

Rev. D. S. FARIS: Perhaps the first thing would be to 
hear him on his declinature. 

Dr. MCALLISTER : It is simply to get the matter before 
us, and to show that the complaint cannot come in. 

Rev. J. R. THOMPSON; I do not understand that the 
matter of the declinature came in. He spoke of nothing but 
his complaint. Was there any evidence he was suspended 
because he declined? 

Dr. MCALLISTER : It was not because he declined. 

Rev. J. R. THOMPSON: The action of Presbytery was 
based not on a declinature, but on his attending the East End 
Meeting. 

Dr. MCALLISTER : That does not make a particle of dif- 
ference. What I wish to bring before the Court is this: 
When he took out his declinature he was notified that that 
would bring him before this Court on that declinature. This 
point was made when we were taking up these proceedings, 
but it was waived by the Pittsburgh Presbytery, simply that 
we might have all the matters before us at that stage, but it 
was stated that, when we would come to take the vote, we 
would insist upon having the vote according to what would 
be the law and order of the church. In the hearing of the 
matter all formalities were waived. Now, if the law and 
order of the church had been carried out, Mr. McClurkin 
could not have been heard on the complaint at all. The only 
thing on which he could have been heard would have been 
on his declinature. 

(On motion of Mr. Crowe the Court took a recess until two 
o'clock.) 



494 



STENOGRAPHIC REPORT. 



AFTERNOON SESSION. 

Wednesday, June 10, 1891. 

The MODERATOR : The Court is now ready to proceed 
with the matter before it at the time of taking recess. Dr. 
McAllister has the floor. 

Dr. MCALLISTER : I would simply call attention to the 
fact that Mr. McClurkin presented his declinature to Presby- 
tery, and his attention was called to the result of this. I was 
about to read from the 84th page of our Book of Discipline, 
which treats of declinature, in order to bring the attention of 
this Court to what was brought to his attention. When he 
took his declinature he was told he would have to stand upon 
that declinature; that declinature could not be given in 
verbally, but must be given in in writing. He accordingly 
gave his declinature with his written reasons, and this de- 
clinature must now come before this Court, if we proceed ac- 
cording to our own law and order He was heard informally 
and irregularly in order that there might be nothing what- 
ever kept back. The Presbytery made no objection to hear- 
ing him, although it was certainly against his declinature; 
but it was with the understanding that when it came to the 
action we must proceed by the Book. Now, in order that we 
may have it before us in due form, I move the declinature of 
A. W. McClurkin be taken up for consideration. 

Dr. T. P. STEVENSON : I wish to raise this question : This 
Court having waived that matter, and the representatives of 
Presbytery having waived the objection, and having heard 
Mr. McClurkin already upon his complaint, is it in order now 
to go back and set aside the complaint and act upon the 
declinature? It seems to me, having waived this matter be- 
fore, and having heard Mr. McClurkin upon his complaint, 
we are under obligation to issue that complaint. 

Dr. MCALLISTER : Mr. Moderator, the Presbytery did not 
waive it; it waived the point with regard to hearing him, but 
it did not waive the point that when we came to act we 
should insist then that the declinature as such should be 
taken up. The Court will notice that the reasons that are 
given in the complaint are the same reasons that are given in 
the declinature, but the declinature is that upon which this 
Court must act if we are to proceed according to law. The 
declinature is the only thing this Court can act upon legally, 
and it is this point the Presbytery insists upon. 

Dr. GEORGE : I wish to say in addition to what Dr. Mc- 
Allister has said, that this question was raised at the time and 
we understood that it was presented to the Court in that f orm r 
that it was simply with reference to hearing brother Mc- 
Clurkin's complaint, along with the other complaints that 
the whole subject might be before the Court before it should 



WEDNESDAY, JUNE 10. 



495 



act on any part of it ; that it was stipulated we should follow 
our own book when it came to the decision of the cases. 

Rev. J. R. THOMPSON : This question was up the other 
day. I state the law and the practice of the church. The 
appellant is to bring all papers up to the higher court; if he 
does not bring all the papers the matter goes by default. It 
seems that he has laid his declinature on the table of Synod, 
or at least the Presbytery has laid his declinature on the table 
of Synod. It has.no right to be there, because Mr. McClurkin 
did rot bring it up as one of his papers. He merely brought 
up, the complaint. Presbytery had nothing to do with bring- 
idg up papers to the higher Court. If the party does not 
bring up the papers the ca.-e falls through. Now we have 
nothing to do in this case but take up the complaint of Mr. 
McClurkin. I asked him a few moments ago if he had 
brought up the declinature, and he said he did not. 

Dr. MCALLISTER: It is a strange thing that one who 
professes to be so well versed in church law should make a 
statement like that. 

Rev. J. R. THOMPSON: I will stand by it. 

Dr. MCALLISTER : Now the question is, Whenever any 
one makes a complaint or appeal or puts in a declinature, 
what is the official document? Is it the document which the 
appellant retains in his own hand? By no means. Is it the 
complaint which he retains in his own hands? Why, not for 
a moment. It is the copy of the declinature, which he keeps in 
his own hands? Not at all. Such a document cannot bear the 
transference of the Court. The very idea of our Book in hav- 
ing the paper transferred is that the appelant or complainant, 
or the one who declines, the authority of the Court, shall put 
in the document in the inferior Court that that Court may see 
it and know what it is and see that it is in due form. They 
put their official transference on it, and that document which 
is transferred by the inferior Court comes before the Superior 
Court, and the copy which the appellant himself may have 
has no official character whatever. The paper in every case 
comes by the action of the inferior Court, which gives the 
official transference to it and thus brings it to the Superior 
Court. 

Rev. J. R. THOMPSON: With all due respect to Dr. Mc- 
Allister I have never heard of an appeal being transferred. 
Dr. McAllister takes the position that an appeal must be 
transferred by the lower Court. That is the first time I ever 
heard in any Court that an appeal was to be transferred. If 
a private member comes up with a paper to Synod he must 
take it before the Presbytery ; but an appeal goes up directly 
to the higher Court without a transfer. So that matter was 
settled the other day, and I am surprised that Dr. McAllister 
should bring it up again. And the reason I raised this point 
was, a young man, Mr. Burnett came before the Pittsburgh 



STENOGRAPHIC REPORT. 



Presbytery the other night, and Dr. McAllister, as Moderator, 
stated his appeal must he transferred. He made that state- 
ment to me when I came home. I stated, there was no need 
of any transference; it comes up directly without any trans- 
ference. It was tne first time 1 ever heard of it. Xow. again. 
Dr. McAllister says, we must take up that paper because 
Presbytery has laid it on the table of Synod. Suppose Mr. 
McClurkin had not brought up the complaint at all. or any 
paper, would we have taken it up and passed on it? Xo. He 
may have changed his mind, he may have withdrawn it, he 
may have allowed it to go by default. He did let the declin- 
ature go by default. It is dead. It has no right to be here. 
But he took up the complaint, and the complaint is before 
the Court. And I will appeal to the judgment of any Pres- 
byterian, any man who understands church law. or civil 
law, if that position is not correct, and if Dr. McAllister's 
position is not wrong. 

Prof. D. B. WILLSCKN : I wish to make remarks upon two 
points. The first thing is. if a person does not prosecute, it 
goes by default against them. Mark that, — it goes by default 
against them. 

Eev. J. P. THOMPSOX: Certainly it does. 

Prof. WILLSOX: Xow. I wish to bring before the Court 
how improper it would be not to bring up this matter of the 
declinature first: It was after the declinature that my brother 
was duly warned by the Moderator what the effect of a 
declinature was; I believe he read his from the Book: at least 
he clearly and distinctly told him rbat the effect of the 
declinature was that if the Presbytery issued the case without 
him. and his declinature was not sustained, that he would 
have no recourse by appeal, that he forfeited that right by 
his declinature. If you take up the complaint, look what you 
do*? It is a matter of whether he was convicted on evidence 
or not. Suppose he had not declined the authority of Pitts- 
burgh Presbytery and had gone to trial. The prosecution 
was called on to make certain~stateinents in his absence. He 
had declined the authority of the Court and therefore did not 
reply at all. For my part I would have been glad to have 
heard all his evidence, all he had to say, then and there to set 
himself right with the Court. I, for my part wish to do no 
man injustice; and I do not believe Pittsburgh Presbytery 
wishes to do any man injustice. But the vital part is this: 
The declinature he put in took him off the floor, and he was 
not there to plead his own case, and therefore you have the 
strange dilemma of Pittsburgh Presbytery convicting a man 
on ex-parte evidence, and the party had gone away and was 
not there to plead his case. Xow. you will take the alter- 
native that his declinature not being pressed should go against 
him by default. If that is the case you would njt have to try 
it, but just dismiss the case from your Court at once. Then, 



WEDNESDAY, JUNE 10. 



497 



on the other hand, to take the complaint against us without 
taking up the declinature is unjust to Pittsburgh Presbytery, 
because it is a violation of proper procedure, of what is called 
the res gestae. 

Dr. MCALLISTER : We have had so much substituting 
of what might be called lung power for reason and good 
sound argument that it is time this thing were brought to an 
end. Now, let me ask you to take your books and we will see 
exactly what the'law of the church is. Page 81, paragraph 2 : 
"An aggrieved party may protest against the whole or any 
part of the proceedings of the sentence of the judicatory, 
delivering such protest, with the reasons of it, to the ju- 
dicatory which conducted the process, accompanied with an 
appeal to che next superior, of which protest and reasons a 
copy shall be presented to the judicatory to which the appeal 
is made." 

Now we have the law laid down here. An aggrieved 
party enters his protest and appeal. He enters that to the 
judicatory which conducted the process. Now, what does 
the Book require? The person entering this presents a copy 
himself to the judicatory to which the appeal is made, but the 
paper which is the paper itself goes to the lower Court and it 
is nothing but a copy that he himself has after that. The 
reason of this is that a person might enter a complaint with 
certain reasons, and he might change that, he might put in 
different reasons. If the copy was to be the original docu- 
ment on which action was to be taken we would not know 
whether it was the same one at all or not. But, he puts what 
is the original paper into the hand of the inferior Court that 
conducted the process; that Court sends it to the Superior 
Court, certified as being the proper one; and then it can be 
tested whether the one which the appellant or the complain- 
ant has in his own hands is a true copy or not. You would 
not know whether it was a true copy unless you had an 
original certified copy which in the first place went into the 
hands of the inferior judicatory and by it was laid on the table 
of the superior judicatory. If he is not present when it is 
laid on the table to plead his appeal or declinature, the whole 
matter goes against him by default. 

Rev. J. R. THOMPSON: That is right. 

Dr. MCALLISTER: Yes; that is right. 

Mr. ROSCOE : Are we or are we not considering the items 
in this resolutions brought forward by Mr. McCracken? 

The MODERATOR : We have taken up one of them. 

Mr. ROSCOE : Under what item are we talking now. 

The MODERATOR : The one that was moved before recess 
in regard to A. W. McClurkin. - 

Mr. ROSCOE : The declinature was not mentioned in those 
resolutions. 

Rev. J. McCRACKEN : I supposed the declinature was 



498 



STENOGRAPHIC REPORT. 



waived. 1 have this copy of all these complaints, and that 
speaks simply of the complaint of A. W, McClurkin. And 
that item was based on that complaint and not on the de- 
clinature. 

Rev. J. S. T. MILLIGAN : I am satisfied it was waived,, 
and hence he did not appear on behalf of the declinature but 
on behalf of the complaint, and that matter is now before us, 
not in a judicial form, but in the present form of this paper 
that is before us. 

The MODERATOR : The original motion is to take up the 
complaint. 

Dr. MCALLISTER : I offer as a substitute, that we take up 
the declinature, which will be the due form of law and order. 
(Motion seconded.) 

Tue MODERATOR: We have allowed some discussion on 
this matter for the sake of getting light. 

Rev. J. C. SMITH: Let it be taken up and considered along 
with the other. 

Dr. MCALLISTER: I am perfectly willing you shall take 
up the complaint, but we now have the declinature itself and 
we insist ongoing according to the law and order of the Book, 
We have waived quite enough and we wish to go by the law 
and order of the Book. We waived this in the consideration, 
of the whole matter. 

Rev. T. P. ROBB: Did not Synod waive that? 

Dr. MCALLISTER: £To, it was t tie Presbytery waived it. 
We could have taken this declinature first. 

Rev. J. S. T. M1LLJGAN: I insist that by the action of 
Synod itself this paper be taken up and the ayes and noes 
called for. Of course, I do not know that it is going to* 
amount to a great deal of difference, but it does seem we are 
taking up time and getting ii to difficulty. The case has been 
substantially gone over, and now we will have to go over the 
declinature. 

Rev. J. C. SMITH: Can we not take them up together. 
'c The MODERATOR : The motion is to lay the complaint on 
the table for the purpose of entertaining the substitute, which 
IS] ,t,o take up the declinature first. 

(The motion was then put to viva voce vote and lost.) 

Dr. MCALLISTER: I will have- to enter my dissent if the 
Court insits upon this, and put the Court upon record, for the 
§^n>gle- reason that you are going against the law and order 
of the church. 

Dr. T. P. STEVENSON: I would be very glad to take up 
the declinature in connection with the complaint. 
- ; Dr r MpALLI^TIJR: Let the complaint be considered by all 
means/ 

< JDjr* T> P. . . $T,E VEX $fX$ : I move that the declinature be 
taken up in connection with this complaint. 
j,j(JMo tjijOflb g ec on,d edj $ njd, parried.) 



WEDNESDAY, JUNE 10. 



499 



Dr. MCALLISTER : I ask to withdraw my dissent. 

(The clerk then read the item of the resolution referring to 
A. W. McClurkin; also the declinature. 

Eev. J. C. SMITH: I move the word "dec' mature" 1 be in- 
serted in the resolution, making it read, "th;it the declinature 
and complaint of A. W. McClurkin be sustained. " , 

(Motion seconded.) 

Eev. D. S. FAB IS \ I probably have not fully understood 
the effsoi; of what 'this motion will be; but my understanding 
of it at present is, that when you sustain the declinature then 
we take up the case ourselves and give Mr. McClurkin an op- 
portunity to prove his point before us and decide it upon 
further testimony. 

Rev. T. P. STEVENSON : I think we ought to be very 
careful about sustaining a declinature. It is a grave step for 
any one to decline the authority of Presbytery. lam not 
prepared to vote according to the motion that has just been, 
made. I do not know whether it was seconded or nut? 

The MODERATOR : It was seconded. 

Dr. T, P. STEVENSON: I am not prepared to vote to 
sustain the act of the brother in declining the authority of 
Presbyterj^. I would be very willing to preface the motion 
that is in the paper by not sustaining' the declinature, if that 
would still leave us free to adopt thtT remainder of the resolu- 
tion. 

Dr. MCALLISTER : I think the motion made bv Mr. Smith- 
that now takes up the declinature and the complaint together 
iis necessary. I think the declinature should be ineo^ioned 
in this motion as well as the complaint, that is. gfanpty the- 
lacts of the case : and I think that amendment ought to carry.. 

if carHed «•'» — 

^ The MODERATOR : That is an ame n d m ent to an amend- 

declinaTun ° ' pro P osltlon is »ot to sustain the 

thetse!' ^ T - MILLIGAX: X* "-'etstanding is that ends 

Dr. T P. STEVENSON : We have not heard Mr MeOlnrfiV, 
urging his reasons for declinature McOIuikin 

feKs^a^ s less 

Eev. J. S. T. MILLIGAX: Now you have got it in a form 



BOO 



STENOGRAPHIC REPORT. 



you can decapitate him without a hearing. The moment the 
declinature is not sustained you end the case. 

Dr. R. J. GEORGE: Perhaps what our brother has just 
said is true, that if his declinature be not sustained his com- 
plaint cannot be heard. I think that is true according to the 
Book. But I call the attention of the Court to this fact, that 
our brother, Mr. McClurkin, was informed of this effect of his 
declinature at the time he took it; the Moderator of Presby- 
tery warned him that declining the authority of a Court of 
Christ's house, under whose care he was, had that effect; 
that if he failed to sustain his declinature in the Superior 
Court he would lose his standing, and he is not here in these 
circumstances, through ignorance, or through his inexpe- 
rience, but by his own decision, made with the fact put before 
him, and I do not see that that can be presented as a reason 
why we should override the law of the church with reference 
to him, in order to give him an opportunity to be heard on a 
case, in which he himself, understanding the force of it, took 
a declinature. And then I wish to call the attention of the 
Court to the fact that the overriding of the law with reference 
to this point, and going on to this complaint, cuts the Pres- 
bytery off from its proper defence, because his course, de- 
clining the authority of the Court, interfered with the pro- 
per development of the case as it would have been had he ap- 
peared for his trial be ore the Court. 

Prof. D. B. WILLSON: I wish to raise this point, and I 
think it is vital to this question: This brother having declined 
the authority of Pittsburgh Presbytery, for reasons given in a 
paper on the table of this Court, if he does not present that 
-does it not go against him by default? I think it must be per- 
fectly plain from the Book that the burden is on him to pre- 
sent it, and as he has not, we must reach the conclusion that 
no matter what you do with his complaint, the declinature 
has gone against him by default, according to our law, and 
the verdict of Pittsburgh Presbytery stands in his case; 

Rev. J. S. T. MILLIGAN: I wish to say, I am satisfied 
that is the law, and now this procedure must either result in 
sustaining his declinature or the other alternative, that ends 
the business. Now, I presume the brother was under a mis- 
apprehension ; that he thought he could let his declinature 
go by default, and come in on his complaint. I do think 
there ought to be a little tempering of judgment with mercy. 
I have been taught to believe that mercy might rejoice over 
judgment. But this course is the summa injuria lex. 

Rev. J. C. McFEETERS : It has been said here if the de- 
clinature be not sustained that ends the case. I would like to 
be a little more clear on that point. Now, it has been stated 
here that Mr. McClurkin is willing to withdraw that declina- 
ture for some reason or other. Possibly he has changed his 
-mind with regard to the action of Presbytery. Again, 



WEDNESDAY, JUNE 10. 



501 



if the declinature be not sustained, does that not place 
Mr. McClurkin back in his original position that Pittsburgh 
Presbytery has authority in this case and has proper jurisdic- 
tion over it? Does not that place Mr. McClurkin back where 
he was before he took out his declinature to have the case 
come before you? 

Mr. A. GILCHRIST: I am not quite clear as to what Mr. 
McClurkin understood about it, but I am very clear as to 
what the New York Presbytery gave me when I was there on 
a declinature, and the Kev. J. K. Thompson is the man who 
was that law. Now, I will give you the law just as I got it. 
I declined the authority of the session and went up to the 
other Court by declinature and appeal. And I was told, (and 
I did not need to be told, for the Book told me), that if I lost 
my case there I went back to the session and that session tried 
me and did what they pleased with me. If the Presbytery 
sustained me, then I was before the Presbytery to be tried 
and did not go back to the session. And Mr. Thompson was 
the man who said that I should go back to the session to be 
tried. He said : This case comes from the lower Court to the 
higher Court 

Rev. ISAIAH FARLS : I do not think this is in order. 

Mr. A. GILCHRIST : I am quoting authority. Now, if the 
Presbytery had sustained me, or entertained the process, 
then I would have been tried by the Presbytery. But the 
authority of the church there said", that the cases should not 
come from Presbyteries and Sessions ; that Presbytery should 
invariably send such cases back and let the session try such 
men when they brought them up, because if we did not do 
that, in taking cases out of sessions up to the higher Court we 
would destroy the church order. 

Rev. Mr. JOHNSTON : I do not think there is very much 
danger that this Court will be lax in the enforcement of the 
law. I do not think there is any danger of that at all, Now, 
if we are to err, as there is quite a difference of opinion here, 
had we not better err on the side of mercy? Had we not bet- 
ter give the benefit of any doubt in this case to this brother? 
There is an idea abroad (I do not say whether there is any 
foundation for it or not) that we are pretty strict in the way 
of discipline. I am quite desirous that there should be the 
enforcement of the law ; but if we can in any way show a 
little mercy in this case I think we ought to do it. And if Mr. 
McClurkin is willing to withdraw his declinature let us have 
a vote. 

The MODERATOR : There is a question or two of law here 
on which the Moderator has no right to make a decision. 
The law has been read and explained no doubt corectly ; and 
the question for this Court to determine is whether they will 
waive the point and grant Mr. McClurkin the privilege of 
withrawing his declinature and go on with the hearing. 



502 



STENOGRAPHIC REPORT. 



Rev. J. S. T. MILLIGAN : I move that he be allowed to 
withdraw his declinature. 

Dr. McALLISTEK; I wish to speak on that. I do not want 
any in justice done to Mr. McClurkin; nor do I want any in- 
justice done to any Court. And this motion makes it neces- 
sary that I should bring the whole matter before this Court, 
so that so far as by any. light I can possibly throw on it, they 
shall do what is just and right. 

Now, the case must come practically before you. Mr. Mc- 
Clurkin was duly libelled under a specific charge. Mr. Mc- 
Clurkin was the only person among all who at length, not at 
first, declined the authority of Presbytery. If he had taken 
this step at the outset a different course would have been 
taken from the very first. That is, if Mr. McClurkin at any 
time had said that this was an entire mistake, and he had tes- 
timony to prove that this was a mistake; or if he had said, 
these facts are not true, then the Court would immediately 
have adapted its proceedings to what would have been his 
statement of the case. But here are the facts in reference to 
this matter: As the Minutes show, ihere was no denial of the 
charge. We came up to a certain point, and then at length 
Mr. McClurkin came out distinctly and said, not "I deny the 
fact;'' he did not say that. He did not for one moment say. 
"I deny that I was present at the East End Meeting:'* nor did 
he say. T deny having given approval to the East End Plat- 
form.*' But he said. "I deny that the Court has the evidence." 
That was the denial. Now then we were ready, right then 
and there, whenever Mr. McClurkin made that statement, to 
arrest the proceeding on that libel as it was, and to hear his 
testimony, if he wished to bring testimony, to prove that he 
did not say what the Minute records that he did. He said 
that he had persons there who would take their affidavit that he 
did not say what that Minute recorded he did say, and the way 
was open for him to bring such testimony. If such testimony 
had been brought, if there had been anything of this nature 
done, Pittsburgh Presbytery would either have dropped the 
libel altogether, or it would have issued proceedings anew. 
Nothing of this kind was done, so that Pittsburgh Presbytery 
could do nothing in the case when he declined the authority 
of it, and particularly at this point; for, bear this in mind, if 
the charge* are sustained as relevant, the accused is to be in- 
terrogated as the matters of fact (See page 75 of Book of 
Discipline.) He was interrogated as to matters of fact, and 
he was in doubt himself, as you remember by the question 
which this brother (Rev. D. S. Faris) put to him, as to whether 
his declinature had then gone in or not. 

Now, as we understood it. the relevancy was the matter 
that had been determined. The relevancy could not be argued 
for the reason that our Book says, that no man shall be heard 
in making a plea against his own profession, and he could not 



WEDNESDAY, JUNE 10. 



503 



iiave argued on this point without making this plea against 
iris own profession. If he had done this without making a 
plea against his own profession, I do not think the Court 
■would have shut him out. I do not think it had any disposi- 
tion to shut anybody out, excepting in making a plea against 
the principles of the church, and that according to our Book 
oould not be done in the discussion of the relevancy of the 
libel. Just at that point the declinature was taken, and the 
appellant who made this interlocutory appeal or declinature 
was informed, when he declined the authority of the Court, 
that he was taking a most important step, by the consequences 
of which he would have to abide. He was denying the com- 
petency of Pittsburgh Presbytery to go on and give a righteous 
judgment in the case. The Pittsburgh Presbytery was ready 
to hear his testimony, and if he had stated, --Here is a wit- 
ness,' ' naming the witness. "And I ask this witness to be 
sworn," that witness would have been sworn then and there 
to give his testimony. Nothing of that kind was done. So 
that whe i the authority of Pittsburgh Presbytery was thus 
declined, what could the Presbytery do? Our Book says: 
-'Such declinature does not necessarily arrest the process be- 
fore the inferior judicatory." According to that we went on 
with the testimony we had; and the testimony that is sub- 
mitted was. in the first place, that Mr. McClurkin's name was 
included with the rest in the official Minutes of Presbytery 
which say that he had attempted a defence. The members of 
Pittsburgh Presbytery believe that to the present day. They 
may be mistaken. I am not going to say they are infallible; 
but they believe to the present day that Mr. McClurkin with 
the rest attempted a defence of his connection with the East 
End Meeting and the East End Platform. That came before 
us as testimony. It was not met by any testimony on the 
other side. Even Mr. McClurkin himself did not say that he 
did not do that. He said the Court did not have the testi- 
mony, did not have evidence of the fact. That is the point 
lie made. What could we do, then? 

Then another fact was mentioned — that he did not only 
give his assent to the agreement, but had signed that basis of 
agreement disavowing the East End Platform, which the 
■Court understood to be also evidence of the fact that he did 
give his approval to it. and that he now disavowed it as a 
bond of union. That was evidence that appeared again in 
our record. 

And then the third thing that was mentioned as evidence 
was. that when the Moderator asked him the question, he 
declined to answer. What could we do with the case, but go 
forward and issue it? And now when it comes before this 
Synod on the declinature, this Court, it seems to me, merely 
as a matter of righteousness, law and order, must go by its 
Book. And I simply give an intimation that I shall call the 



504 



STENOGRAPHIC REPORT. 



ayes and nays, as heretofore in every step, and put upon the 
record the position taken hy the Court; and that, by dis- 
sent, if necessary, shall be given a full statement of the 
reasons why the action of the Court is against the law and. 
order of the church. 

Dr. J. C. K. MILL1GAN; Was this shown by Mr. McClur- 
kin on the point of the adinissioility of the libel before they 
proceeded to the relevancy? 

Dr. MCALLISTER: I do not remember that it was brought 
out. It may have been mentioned; but it was under the 
relevancy that it was brought before us, and not under the 
admissibility*. 

Dr. J. C. K. MILLIGAN: Not under the admissibility? 

Dr. MCALLISTER : Not to my recollection. My recollec- 
tion is distinct that this was urged under the relevancy. If it 
had been under the admissibility, why cot then have declined 
there? 

Dr. J. C. K. MILLIGAN: My idea is that he did introduce 
it there, but of course that is only bv hearsay ; my evidence 
is that he put in his objection under the admissibility, and 
still hoping Presbytery would hear him, he pressed it fmther 
under the relevancy, and then took his declinature. 

Dr. MCALLISTER : Let me just give you my recollection. 
He did say there were no witnesses, and he plead agaiDst the 
admissibility on the ground that there were no witnesses, and 
that there was not any testimony; but all the rest did exactly 
the same thing. We maintain there were witnesses: that the 
Court itself was the witness ; that the record itself was the 
testimony ; that the whole case had come up to the point 
where the testimony was all in; where the testimony was 
complete and nothing more was needed. And this point was 
argued in his case just as it was in the case of the others. 
Until the question of relevancy came up, he did the same as 
the rest did. The same line of argument was maintained by 
all with the exception of this, that at that point Mr. McClur- 
kin, before he gave in his declinature, made a speech (I rec- 
ollect it very distinctly inasmuch as I was in the chair), mak- 
ing this charge, and I thought I noticed some persons in the 
audience nodding their heads, as much as to say they were 
willing to bear testimony. I think I heard some one say, "I 
am willing to testify to that.'' But no such testimony was 
offered. That was all under this discussion of the relevancy; 
and at that time, or at any other time. Presbytery would have 
been willing to have heard any witnesses that the appellant 
would have brought forward. 

Dr. T. P. STEVENSON: I have difficulty in voting for 
the motion. I think any one will have difficulty in voting for 
the motion which is now before us. that Mr. McClurkin have 
leave to withdraw his declinature. The declinature was not 
made to this Synod ; it was not the authority of this Synod he 



WEDNESDAY, JUNE 10. 



505 



declined, it was the authority of Presbytery ; and I do not see 
that Synod can' permit him to withdraw a declinature which 
was made before the Presbytery. How r ever, this, I think, we 
can do, and this, I think, it is entirely competent for us to do : 
permit Mr. McClurkin to come before Synod, and before the 
Presbytery against which he has complained, and purge him- 
self of contempt of the authority of Presbytery in the pres- 
ence of this Synod, and in that way dispose of his declinature 
of its authority.. 

The ASSISTANT CLERK: If he be permitted to with- 
draw his declinature, why not then return the case to Pres- 
bytery to settle in their judgment as they deem best? 

'Prof. D. B. WLLLSON: This complaint goes beyond the 
point, and goes beyond the declinature, and he includes the 
whole treatment that he received. If you shut off his declin- 
ature and admit his complaint, for my part I w T ould have a 
certain sense of shame for having presented an accusation, 
and having voted against a man, when further developments- 
would show that he was innocent. One part of it is that he 
assisted in making up the East End Platform ; the other that 
he was at the Meeting and approved of the Platform after it 
was put up. Now, wiio is to blame that there w T as no counter 
evidence? Himself, by declining the authority of tL e Court. 
Therefore, I say, as I look on it, as wanting to do right, if his 
declinature goes, a great part of his complaint goes w r ith it; 
because if w T e had met on this basis in Pittsburgh Presbytery, 
and he had said, ''Brethren, you are wrong, and I am pre- 
pared to show you that you are wrong by evidence," do you 
suppose we would have gone on? Are we not fair enough 
men to have said, "Bring your evidence forward; it seems to 
be against you; you signed the paper saying that you with- 
drew^ etc. ; that you disavowed it." So that I say the prima 
facie evidence was against him. If he had gone on and 
pleaded, and brought his w itnesses, he would likely have had 
perfect justice. 

Dr. T. P. STEVENSON : I have not yielded the floor ex- 
cept for an explanation. The reason I make the motion is 
this : The case has been so far proceeded with before this 
Synod, and testimony has been brought in reference to this 
case before this Synod by one of the young brethren, which 
was not before the Presbytery, so that it seems the Synod 
ought to be prepared to follow that up ; and I move that Mr. 
McClurkin have the opportunity to purge himself before the 
Synod of any thought or purpose of contempt of the authority 
of Pittsburgh Presbytery. I Think he confused in his mind 
the meaning of a declinature of the authority of Presbytery 
with an appeal, and he really thought it was an appeal of his 
case to Synod. 

(Motion seconder!.) 

The MODERATOR : It is important for us just to see what 



-S06 



STENOGRAPHIC REPORT. 



we have before us in the shape of motions. Can the clerk 
state the motions before the house? 

The CLERK: According to the Minute I have made thus 
far for this afternoon, the first thing we had before us was the 
matter pending at the hour of recess, which was resumed. 
Then the declinature of Rev. A. W. McClurkin was taken up 
in connection with that matter; and now the motion made by 
the brother, which I have not got recorded, that he be allowed 
to purge himself of contempt. 

Mr. LOGAN : Mr. McClurkin gave notice, according to 
^;he Minute, of an appeal and complaint. He had a complaint 
before ever he took his declinature. That is lying before 
Synod. Now, Mr. McClurkin can be heard upon that. As I 
understand, the ground of that complaint w^as that the rec- 
ords of Presbytery were wrong. When an individual im- 
peaches a record of the lower court, he can do so before the 
higher court, but he must bring testimony before the higher 
court to substantiate the impeachment. We have had the case 
before this Synod, possibly some thirty j ears ago, when Mr. 
Thomas Johnston impeached the records of Lakes Presby- 
tery. Synod required him to bring testimony when he im- 
peached the records of Presbytery, to show that they were 
wrong. Mr. McClurkin's complaint is on the admissibility of 
the charge. The ground on which he complains of this ad- 
missibility was, that there was no testimony, and that the 
Tecords of the lower court were not correct. Now, that is an 
impeachment of those records. If he can prove that the rec- 
ords are not correct, then of course he gains his point. 

Dr. McALLLSTER : We have here the two documents, and 
we have them, with the reasons, before us. The Synod has 
seen fit to say that it would entertain this complaint. Now, I 
insist with regard to what the brother has just said, that 
wherever an appeal or complaint is first taken, or it may be 
taken a half dozen times, and then afterwards a declinature is 
taken, the declinature rules out the consideration of the com- 
plaint or appeal. The declinature is the point that must be 
considered. Any one who declines the authority of the Court 
has no right whatever to be heard on any appeal or com- 
plaint that he enters before declining the authority of the 
Court. He himself ought to understand that-, for it was 
brought before him distinctl}' at the time, that a declinature 
had this effect. He must be heard on the declinature of the 
authority of the Court. 

We have, however, admitted a complaint here informally. 
Now, reasons are given in the complaint. This is a motion 
that we hear the complaint and declinature together. Pres- 
bytery is perfectly willing to do that, but we will hold the 
Synod to the record. We have here the reasons given. The 
reasons given by this person himself with the appeal which 
was referred to, are not here; the appeal never came here, 



WEDNESDAY. JUNE 10. 



507 



and it is not before this Court. Notice was given of taking 
out an appeal in reference to the admissibility of the libel. 
That appeal was never handed in to Presbytery. That appeal 
never came before that Court, and that appeal has never been 
put upon the table of this Court. So with regard to the mat- 
ter of appeal on other points. The appeals were never made 
up; there were never any reasons for such appeals given into 
the hands of Pittsburgh Presbytery, and such documents, 
therefore, can not be before this Court. We have, however, 
the complaint; and it is the complaint which has come before 
this Court. We waived the law so far as to hear Mr. McClur- 
kin on anything he wished to say with reference to the case. 
Now we come to the consideration of the documents which 
are here, and we have waived a good deal when we say we 
are willing to have Synod take the complaint, which, accord- 
ing to strict law and order, has no right whatever to be here 
in connection with the declinature. 

A MEMBER: Was the complaint against the admissibility 
of the libel never presented? 

Dr. McALLISTEK: No, sir. 

Rev. J. C. SMITH: I was going to suggest that the matter 
Mr. Stevenson brought up was a proper thing, when he moved 
that it lie on the table. 

Dr. T. P. STEVENSON: I make it in this form; that the 
matter just pending lie on the table until Mr. McClurkin has 
opportunity to purge himself of the contempt of Presbytery. 

(Motion seconded.) 

Rev. J. S. T. MILLIGAN: I wish to say a word here, and 
it will answer what I wanted to say in another place. It is 
stated in the record of Pittsburgh Presbytery that Mr. Mc- 
Clurkin complains in the matter of this testimony; and it is 
stated in connection with that complaint, as the basis of it. 
that he could prove and had there and would produce the 
evidence that the record upon which they depended for 
testimony in his case, was not correct. They went on with- 
out regard to that to the consideration of the relevancy, and 
ultimately under the relevancy he enters his declinature. 
Now, Dr. McAllister stated here that that declinature cuts off 
the consideration of the previous complaint. I beg his par- 
don; if the declinature is sustained, if it shows that in the 
consideration of the relevancy or admissibility of the libel 
the Court had not testimony — and it is here made evident 
that they did not have testimony; I think we are all con- 
vinced of the fact; I think I may refer to that, that not only 
one of those who were at the East End Meeting says he was 
not there to consider the publication of that document at all, 
but I think I have heard it from every one that was here 
almost, that that is not the fact, and the Presbytery ought to 
have taken that matter into consideration when it was 
affirmed and proof offered. Then he made his complaint. 



508 



STENOGRAPHIC REPORT. 



They were going on to try him. He could do nothing hut 
decline. I do not see any regret for him hecause of that 
grievance. Now our place is to consider his complaint in the 
matter of admitting a libel that had no testimony, and if we 
sustain that complaint, there is no necessity of considering 
the declinature. 

Rev. J. C. SMITH: I submit that is all out of order. 

Rev. J. S. T. MILLIGAN: I submit the motion is out of 
order in asking a man to purge himself for doing that which 
he was forced to do when they admitted a libel without testi- 
mony. 

Rev. J. MCCRACKEN: I think I heard it stated by the 
Presbytery that the complaint and appeal, talked about and 
written here in the paper, never came to Presbytery at til. 

Dr. MCALLISTER : A complaint but not an appeal. It is 
a complaint which just gives the same reasons as the declin- 
ature. 

Rev. Mr. McCRACKEN: There is not any appeal? 
Dr. MCALLISTER : No appeal at all. 

Mr. D. TORRENS : I do think that motion is not in order. 

The MODERATOR : The Moderator has decided it is in 
order, and we will not debate the question. 

Mr. TORRENS : I am going to speak against it. 

The MODERATOR : You cannot be heard to speak against 
it. It has not been thrown open to the house to debate that 
motion. The Moderator has decided that it is in order, and 
the only way around it is an appeal to the house. 

Dr. GEORGE : I understand our brother to say that he is 
going to speak against the motion. 

Mr. TORRENS: That is what I was going to do. The 
motion, as I understand it, made by Dr. Stevenson, is that 
Mr. McClurkin be required to purge himself of contempt, or 
supposed contempt, of Pittsburgh Presbvtery. 

Dr. T. P. STEVENSON : Not required, have the oppor- 
tunity. 

Mr. TORRENS : I am opposed to that for this reason : We 
have had a very singular presentation of proceedings pre- 
sented here by Dr. McAllister, that the records had a certain 
complaint against Mr. McClurkin, which he said was untrue, 
and that Dr. McAllister stated to him, 4 -We will receive any 
testimony that you have to disprove the records. Have you 
any witnesses?" Now, what would that be? Requiring a :nan 
to prove a negative. If a man makes a charge against me, 
am i bound to prove my innocence? No, sir. That was the 
position taken by Dr. McAllister on that occasion when he 
said, "Bring your witnesses and prove our record is not 
true." He asked Mr. McClurkin to prove a negative, which is 
never required anywhere in anv court of justice. 

Rev. J. C. McFEETERS: If I understand the motion that 
is now before the house it is offering Mr. McClurkin the priv- 



"WEDNESDAY, JUNE 10. 



509 



ilege of purging himself of contempt of Pittsburgh Presby- 
tery. Now, it has been said that he is willing to withdraw 
his* declinature. That declinature perhaps was . made on the 
spur of the moment, and without deliberation, or time to de- 
liberate, and Mr. McGlurkin may have changed his mind. I 
do think we ought to give him the privilege of explaining 
himself, when he says, or his friends say, that he desires to 
withdraw his declinature. 

Dr. GEORGE: I wish to call attention again to this fact, 
that Mr. McClurkin 's declinature decided the after- course of 
Pittsburgh Presbytery, and that when he purges himself with 
reference to it, that again qualifies Pittsburgh Presbytery to 
deal with the case, and this Court could certainly not, in 
justice to Pittsburgh Presbytery, deal with him as if he had 
not declined, when his declinature determined the course 
which they must take with reference to him. If he purges 
himself of his course in his declinature, then Pittsburgh 
Presbytery has a right to ask that that being removed, the 
case return to them, and they deal with if as if they had 
never been set at naught. But you cannot, in justice to a 
court of Christ's house, do anything else if that course of 
procedure is taken. 

Eev. Mr. TTYLIE : I move that he be permitted to with- 
draw his declinature, and the case be returned to Pittsburgh 
Presbvterv. 

The MODERATOR : That would not be in order. 

Mr. LOGAX: I do not think we need to ask Mr. McClur- 
kin to purge himself of contempt of Pittsburgh Presbytery, 
for there has been no evidence brought before us that there 
was any contempt. If Mr. McClurkin saw proper to decline 
the authority of Presbytery, and give a reason for it, he had 
a right to do it: and there was no contempt of Presbytery in 
that. He certainly had a right to do so. And then in regard 
to giving any testimony, or answering the matter whether he 
was guilty or not. the Book gives him a perfect right either 
to confess the crime, or to put himself upon trial. That is 
the law of the Book. If he saw proper to put himself upon 
trial, and not say whether he was guilty or not. he had 
a perfect right to do it. So that there was no contempt what- 
ever there. But then I will say this, in regard to the matter, 
if Mr. McClurkin withdraws his declinature, it cuts him out 
legally from any further right here; it just remands the case 
back to Pittsburgh Presbytery without any opportunity of 
appeal, so that he is left at the mercy of Pittsburgh Presby- 
tery. If he withdraws his declinature, that is where it puts 
him. 

Rev. J. C. SMITH: I want to say just a word. I think he 
had a perfect right to decline the authority of the Pittsburgh 
Presbytery if he thought they were wrong. I think he had 
that right, and I think he ought to be sustained in so doing. 



510 



STENOGRAPHIC REPORT. 



It seeui- there are some people here that think he was show- 
ing disregard of their authority. Now, all I would want him 
to do would be to appear and say that in his declinature he 
had no thought of disregarding a court of the Lord's house y 
but he thought the line of procedure was such that he could- 
not g t justice in the case, and therefore he declined the 
authority of the Court, because of the irregularity ol their 
procedure which cut hirn out from a just decision. And the 
reason I support this motion is, that if there is in the minds- 
of any one a thought that he wished to show a disregard for 
the authority of the Court of the Lord's house, he will have 
an opportunity to say that he did not; that hi* only thought 
was that the course that they had taken was cutting him out 
of a right decision, and 1 think he was right. 

Prof. WILLSON : It must be obvious. I think, to any one 
on reflection, that you cannot cut apart two questions that 
are essentially connected. His declinature of Pittsburgh 
Presbytery is such an essential fact in the case that you can- 
not dissociate it from his complaint. As Dr. McAllister has 
said, the reasons for the declinature and for the complaint 
are the same. Now you can easily see that if he withdraws- 
his declinature, that relieves Pittsburgh Presbytery of the 
complaint against her. If he presses his declinature, then, 
let Synod say whether he had ground for declining its auth- 
ority. If he does not press his declinature, the case goes 
against him by default. So that under the law of our Book 
relating to declinature, it leaves him, as stated here, to the 
mercy of the Court. I do not like that expression ; I prefer 
"to the jurisdiction of the Court.''' I would say. "leaves him 
to the jurisdiction of the Court." The only thing to do is, if 
you will grant him the right to purge himself in any way of 
his act of declinature, you must associate with it the remand- 
ing of the case to the Pittsburgh Presbytery for a new trial; 
there is no alternative. 

Rev. J. F. CROZIER: It has been asserted here that Mr. 
McClurkin ha I the risjht to decline the authority of Pitts- 
burgh Presbytery. Pittsburgh Presbytery does not deny 
this; but Pittsburgh Presbytery insists that she has a right to 
have that declinature taken up now. and to have it decided 
by Synod as to whether he was justifiable in making that 
declinature. 

Rev. D. S. FARIS: I rise to remark the same thought that 
Dr. Willson has stated, that if Mr. McClurkin should, purge 
himself here, and we should sustain the trial, or not sustain 
it, it must go b-ick to Pittsburgh Presbytery; or else we must 
try it ourselves here, one way or the other. 

(Cries of "Question. Question.") 

The MODERATOR: The question before us is this : That 
these morior.s to consider the complaint and declinature be 
laid on the table for the purpose of giving Mr. McClurkin an 



WEDNESDAY. JUNE 10. 



511 



opportunity to purge himself of contempt of Pittsburgh Pres- 
bytery. 

Dr, MCALLISTER : I think it ought to be understood what 
that means - purging himself of contempt. In the case of the 
others you gave the same opportunity. It was distinctly be- 
fore this Court that there had been contempt of the authority 
of Pittsburgh Presbytery in preaching after they had been 
suspended from the exercise of the office of the ministry. Mr. 
McClurkin has been guilty of exactly the same course as the 
rest. If the rest have'been guilty of contempt of the authority 
of Pittsburgh Presbytery, and if this Court felt it was neces- 
sary in the other cases that they should have the opportunity 
to purge themselves of Mich act of contempt, the same thing' 
holds true in regard to Mr. McClurkin. Pittsburgh Presby- 
tery went forward and found him guilty of pursuing divisive- 
courses. The question is not w hether that was just or not r 
unless you take up the whole case and try it. The question is- 
not with regard to the relevancy, nor with regard to supen- 
sion. He did. as a matter of fact, as is proven by the notoriety 
of the fact, just as in the other cases, go forward and violate 
the act of suspension, and thus show contempt of the author- 
ity of Pittsburgh Presbytery. Now. if it is insisted that he- 
has purged himself of that; if that has already been done to 
the satisfaction of this Court, and this be now a purging him- 
self of contempt simply in the act declining the authority of 
the Court, let us have the matter distinctly before us. 

Rev. J. McCRACKENT: There is not any contempt in de- 
clining the authority of the Court. It seems to me that i& 
impossible. He cannot purge himself of contempt in present- 
ing a re.-pi-ctful declinature. 

Dr. J. VV. SPROUT L: I have not said a word on this mat- 
ter. I do not see the point that has been made, that Mr. Mc- 
Clurkin will stand belter by bringing forward hi? complaint- 
I do not believe it. I believe that his wise plan is to come 
forward before this Court and urge his declinature. Now. let 
me just present the way it strikes me. Mr. McClurkin comes 
before this Court, and he says this: Pittsburgh Presbytery 
framed a libel; they gave their eva ence in my trial; 1 told 
Pittsburgh Presbytery, that evidence is untrue, .aid lam 
willing to prove it is untrue. And if I understand Mr. Mc- 
Clurkin clearly, he s;iys Pittsburgh Piesbytery went forward 
after that and proceeded to tiy him. And now he says, '*I 
decline the authority that will proceed to try me on evidence 
which is false, and which 1 am prepared to prove is false." 

My judgment may be wrong, but in my opinion the right 
plan for that man to pursue is this: To come forward and 
say. ••! did decline the authority of Pittsburgh Piesbytery; I 
did it respectfully : I have the highest respect for that court; 
and. Fathers and Brethren. I will present you my evidence., 
and I will ask you to decide whether or not it was just. ,r 



512 



STENOGRAPHIC REPORT. 



Now I think that is his wisest course. I know if I were in his 
place, that is the course I would pursue. 

The MODERATOR : The question before us is whether we 
lay these motions to consider the complaint and declinature 
on the table for the purpose of giving Mr. McClurkin an op- 
portunity to purge himself of contempt of Pittsburgh Presby- 
tery. 

(The motion was then put with viva voce vote, and declared 
lost.) 

The MODERATOR : The motion is now to take up the de- 
clinature and the complaint. 

Rev. J. S. T. MILLIGA.N: My motion would come in 
there, but I withdraw it. 

Rev. D. S. FARIS : If he is allowed to withdraw it, we must 
send it back to Pittsburgh Presbytery. 

The MODERATOR : The motion only is withdrawn ; now 
the consideration of the declinature is the matter before the 
Court. 

Prof. W. J. COLEMAN: I wish to ask a question: Tf the 
declinature be sustained, does that bring Mr. McClurkin be- 
fore this Court for trial? I ask that question through the 
Moderator, of Mr. Willson. 

Prof. D. B. WILLSON: The Moderator can answer that 
question. 

The MODERATOR: The Moderator's answer would be 
that it certainly does. 

Rev. J. C. SMITH: It brings him either before this Synod, 
or we can send him back to Presbytery. 

Rev. J. S. T. MILLIGrAN : It would be well to say that 
after all this case has been tried by his pressing his complaint 
and their rebuttal, and it is not necessary for him to speak 
again, nor for the other party to defend. 

The MODERATOR : That is correct. 

Rev. J. S. T. MILLIGAN: The matter is substantially 
before us. If there is new matter, that is another question; 
but I do not think there is; it is the same matter. Really the 
merit of the one case was in the other case, and we are pre- 
pared now, I think, if Mr. McClurkin is here (or whether he 
is here or not) to proceed to a vote on this declinature. 

Prof. COLEMAN: I understand that if this declinature be 
sustained, it comes before the Synod for trial from the very 
point at which it stopped in Presbytery; yes or no, if you 
please. If the Moderator cannot answer, I will request Dr. 
Willson to answer that question. 

The MODERATOR: It is quite difficult to determine just 
in what shape the case is before us. 

Prof. WILLSON : I would say I would take it for granted 
that the process is triable by members of his own church. A 
minister can only be tried in our church by Presbytery or 



WEDNESDAY, JUNE 10. 



513 



Synod. If he declines to be tried by the court under whose 
jurisdiction he is, what is left but the Synod? 

Prof. COLEMAN": If the declinature was not sustained, 
does he go back to Presbytery for trial from the point at 
which they stopped? 

Prof. W1LLSON": That is correct. 

Rev. D. S. FARIS : If the declinature is not sustained, sen- 
tence is confirmed, and he lays under it? 

The MODERATOR : The Moderator wishes to say, how- 
ever, that that declinature has never yet been read to this 
Court except this afternoon. It was read this afternoon, but 
it was not read before. Although Mr. McClurkin addressed 
the Court before, yet the matter has not been really argued. 

Dr. MCALLISTER : It seems nothing more than fair that 
the person who made the declinature should be heard; he 
has not been heard on this declinature. This Court has al- 
ready passed a motion to take up the declinature and com- 
plaint together. If he does not see fit to be heard in defend- 
ing or maintaining the declinature, the Presbytery would 
claim the right to the floor for a few minutes to speak against 
that declinature. Inasmuch as it has the right to do that, it 
will claim the right to be heard, just as the person who makes 
an interlocutory appeal has the right to be heard. 

Mr. WARNOCK : I wish to ask for information, and I wish 
to make a motion : Has the matter of the declinature been be- 
fore the Committee on Discipline? 

Dr. Mc ALLISTER : It has no need to be there. 

The MODERATOR : The Moderator has no opinion on that 
point. 

Mr. WARNOCK: Have the papers in the declinature of 
Mr. McClurkin been before the Committee on Discipline? 

Rev. J. MCCRACKEN: That paper was among the other 
papers. 

Mr. WARISTOCK : The declinature? 
Rev. Mr. McCRACKEN: Yes, sir. 

Mr. WARNOCK: I move the declinature be referred back 
again to the Committee on Discipline. 

The MODERATOR: The motion now before us is with 
reference to the declinature and the reasons of complaint. 
The clerk will read the exact form in which the motion is, 
a,nd then the opportunity will be given Mr. McClurkin if he 
has anything to say to this Court to do so. 

(The clerk read the motion as recorded.) 

The MODERATOR: If Mr. McClurkin now wishes to be 
heard on this question he has the privilege of addressing the 
Court. 

Rev. A. W. McCLURKIN": It has been stated here that 
my reasons for complaint and declinature, while not identi- 
cally the same, were virtually the same. Now it seems to me 
that it will be proper to explain to you that my reasons for 



STENOGRAPHIC REPORT. 



declinature are somewhat different from my reasons for com- 
plaint, in that I have more included in my reasons for decli- 
nature than I have in my reasons for complaint. My com- 
plaint was entered after the admissibility of the libel had 
been determined by Presbytery. I argued against the admis- 
sibility on the ground that it contained no admissible testi- 
mony. I argued against the admissibility on the ground that 
it was illegal in that it contained the name of no witness to 
support the testimony contained in the libel, which testimony 
is false, that testimony being the assertion that I made certain 
statements. I argued against the admissibility of the libel on 
the ground that that libel ought to be re-framed if it were 
to be determined as admissible against me. When the admis- 
sibility of the libel was being considered, I stated in Presby- 
tery that I did not make the statements that were attributed 
to me in the libel in Presbytery on the 15th of October. It 
was not behooving me to bring forward the statements I had 
made in Presbytery, for it appears to me reasonable and just 
that if I were to be libeled on those statements made in 
Presbytery in October it was the business of Presbytery to 
have those statements before me ; it was the business of Pres- 
bytery to have those statements in the libel, as the reason for 
libeling me. 

Kow in regard to the relevancy. When that matter was 
being considered, I desired a ruling of the Moderator on what 
was to be determined under relevancy. This matter has been 
gone over again and again in your hearing, and I need not 
worry you by recounting what was done in considering the 
relevancy of the libel against me, but it seems to me that it 
would be nothing but right for me to go over again, as nearly 
as I can recall, the way that matter was brought before Pres- 
bytery when the admissibility of the libel was being consid- 
ered. I first brought forward the point that there were no 
witnesses named in the libel against me ; that there were no 
witnesses called forward to testify that I had said what the 
Minute contained. Then I went further before they had de- 
cided the matter, and stated that I did not say in Presbytery 
what the libel affirmed I had stated. There they had the 
matter before them. They had the whole question before 
them, and it appears to me that if Presbytery desired to do 
the right thing, and the just thing, if there was any inclina- 
tion in the minds of Presbytery or its officers so to do, they 
ought then and there to have moved that the libel be re- 
framed, and the proceedings be stayed in my case. 

Of course, it has been stated here that I did not deny at- 
tendance at the East End Meeting, that I did not deny that. 
Of course, that has been stated again and again. 1 had not 
denied it from beginning to end, but I denied this: That I 
stated upon the floor of Presbytery, or that I admitted or 
affirmed or defended upon the floor of Presbytery in October 



WEDNESDAY, JUNE 10. 



515 



any connection with the East End Meeting and Platform. 
Presbytery may have understood differently. They have 
since stated they did understand differently, hut that does 
not alter the fact as to what I stated upon the floor of Preshy- 
tery. You may state certain things here in my presence. I 
may understand just exactly the opposite of what you state, 
hut that does not change the fact of what you stated. It ap- 
pears to me that it would have been the right thing for Pres- 
hytery to do, then, to have moved, to have considered a 
motion, at least, to reframe the libel against me. Because 
they did not do so I allowed them to go on until we came to 
the consideration of the relevancy; I attempted then to 
secure a ruling of the Moderator upon what was to be consid- 
ered with reference to the relevancy of the libel. This is one 
reason for my declinature : "Because the Presbytery has sus- 
tained the Moderator in making such an interpretation of the 
law with reference to the relevancy of the libel that no op- 
portunity of arguing the relevancy of the libel was allowed." 
These are not the exact words of that declinature as read, but 
they are almost the same, just changing one sentence. I did 
not have the exact copy before me when I wrote it, but it is 
almost the same. N"ow the interpretation of the Moderator 
concerning the relevancy of the libel which he had given in 
December, not having been overturned by Presbytery, stood 
yet, and the question was asked when the same form of libel 
was being considered in December, by one (I don't remember 
the exact words, but it was to this effect), What is the ques- 
tion that we are voting on now? What is decided under the 
relevancy of the libel? Are we simply deciding that the fol- 
lowing of a divisive course is censurable? The Moderator 
returned the answer, "Yes, we are deciding that tbe follow- 
ing of divisive courses is censurable under relevancy." Well, 
of course, that shut off any discussions at that time. There 
was no opportunity for arguing against the relevancy of tjie 
libel at that time. And there was no opportunity of arguing 
against the relevancy of the libel in January. There is no 
room to debate in our church whether the following of divi- 
sive courses is a censurable offence or not, and Presbytery has 
no right to transcend its powecs in attempting to decide 
simply that following of divisive courses is relevant or is a 
censurable offence. Presoytery had no more right to deter- 
mine that following divisive courses is a censurable offence 
than a grand jury has the right to determine that murder is a 
crime and deserves punishment. Those questions are both 
removed beyond the power of the grand jury and of the Pres- 
bytery. Those questions are determined by the highest court. 
There are not two minds or two opinions within our church 
with regard to whether following of divisive courses is a 
censurable offence or is not a censurable offence. All are 
agreed that following divisive courses is relevant to censure. 



516 



STENOGRAPHIC REPORT. 



But the point there to he determined concerning the rele- 
vancy was, whether the following of a certain course, attend- 
ance at a certain meeting, approval of a certain platform, the 
maintenance of certain principles. — whether these things are 
censurable, and not simply whether the following of divisive 
courses be censurable. The question to be determined under 
the charge of murder 

Mr. W. T. MILLER : I would like to know whether this 
is entirely in order. I hope we will keep right in order. We 
do not want to stay here six months on the question of 
whether murder is a crime or not. The members of the Court 
are tired to death with the thing, and I hope the Moderator 
will keep them down to the point. 

Rev. J. C. SMITH: I suggest that the argument on the 
relevancy is not relevant, and does not make for his case. 

Rev. A. W. McCLURKJX: It is the second point in my 
declinature, and is not included in mv complaint. 

ilr. TORREXS : I would like to ask Mr. McClurkin a ques- 
tion. 

Rev. D. S. FARIS : The Moderator will stop these questions 
until the time comes. 

The MODERATOR : This is no time for questions. 

Rev. A. W. XcJLURKIX: Concerning a further reason 
for declinature is added with this other, and which is co- 
ordinate with it, or you might say part of it. the Moderator 
refused to record his decision in reference to this point. I 
asked that the Moderator's decision as to what was deter- 
mined under relevancy should b.e recorded. It may be strange 
that I should ask that question, but it seems to me that it is 
just and reasonable, when a court is determining a point, and 
is voting on a certain question, that it should be entered upon 
the records what question they are determining, and not 
simply have it decided that the relevancy of the libel was 
sustained, or that the admissibility of the libel was sustained. 
There should be entered on tne record that the charge of fol- 
lowing divisive courses, and attendance at the East End 
Meeting, and approval of its Platforms, were sustained as 
relevant. That seems to me that ought to be entered upon 
the record a^ the question upon which Presbytery was voting 
at that time. Perhaps I was unreasonable in my demand, but 
it seemed to me that if the relevancy of that libel were to be 
argued in the Court at alL I ought to have the decision of the 
Moderator recorded in order that the Presbytery might over- 
turn the decision of the Moderator upon the relevancy, and 
that the question should be before them by appeal from the 
Moderator's decision. 

Xow, I do not know that it will be necessary for me to go 
over these reasons for my declinature. The reasons appeared 
plain to me at the time why I should decline the authority of 
Pittsburgh Presbytery, and. appeal to this Court for redress. 



WEDNESDAY, JUNE 10. 



517 



Presbytery did not have my statement upon record at all, but 
had simply an assertion concerning my statement made before 
it in October. When I deny that that statement covers the 
ground, or that that statement is true concerning the state- 
ment that I made in Presbytery, then does not that overturn 
the validity of the libel, or the admissibility of the testimony 
against me? And Presbytery ought then to have considered 
the matter of resubmitting the case, advancing an admissible 
libel and bringing forward witnesses. But when the admis- 
sibility of the libel was being considered, I offered then and 
there to present witnesses. And more than that, I offered 
myself to testify in the court that that statement in the libe-1, 
that that statement in the Minute, is incorrect and false. I 
used the word incorrect then, if I remember correctly. Now, 
Presbytery ought then, when the testimony was denied before 
that court, to have re- submitted the case, to have re-framed 
the libel, and presented their witnesses against me. It seems 
to me that this Court ought to sustain my reasons for decli- 
nature. It seems to me you ought to sustain the appeal which 
I make to you for redress. I am not going to stand on little 
points concerning this matter. These points do not matter so 
very much now, but it appears to me when a person is 
charged on a libel with specific assertions in that libel, and 
when he is charged with making certain statements at a cer- 
tain time, which statements he did not make, and which he is 
prepared to prove, it appears to me when he is tried on those 
very statements which he is said to have made, he ought cer- 
tainly to do nothing but decline the authority of the court 
that proceeds further to try him, and he ought to be sustained 
by the superior court to which he appeals for redress. 

The MODERATOR : The Presbytery will now be heard by 
its representatives. 

Dr. MCALLISTER : Mr. Moderator, Fathers and Brethren, 
I simply wish to call your attention to a few points, and I will 
be very brief. The first thing to which I ask your attention 
with regard to this declinature is the statement concerning 
the Moderator. It is stated: "He also refused to record any 
decision in reference to this point." That is, in reference to 
what was relevant to censure in the libel. He refused to re- 
cord any decision on the subject of relevancy. Well, this does 
seem a strange thing. It is not the Moderator's business to 
record anything; it is the clerk's business to make a record of 
the proceedings of Presbytery. The Moderator cannot be 
blamed for not making a record, for he is not making the 
record. The Moderator gave his decision whenever these 
questions came up to be decided, and the Moderator was called 
upon to render a decision. He sought faithfully to give a 
decision, and the record was made by the clerk of all the pro- 
ceedings of Presbytery; and if there was anything not re- 
corded that it was thought ought to have been recorded, the 



518 



STENOGRAPHIC REPORT. 



way was open to secure the floor and to complete the record. 
It was not the business of the Moderator, but . the business of 
the recording officer, that is, the clerk himself. I need not 
dwell at any greater length upon that point. 

JSTow, in reference to this matter of relevancy. I wish to 
bring before you once more the point that the Moderator, 
from the very beginning, insisted that the proceedings before 
the Presbytery were after this manner ; the libel was pursu- 
ing divisive courses. Well, nobody needs here to say that 
that is a thing that is relevant to censure, if the court decide 
the party guilty. The libel might have been contumacy; it 
might have been contempt; and it might have been insub- 
ordination. Of course, the Court must decide whether that 
is relevant to censure or not, and the Court simply decided 
that this charge, pursuing divisive courses, was relevant to 
censure. 

If the specification had been that Mr. McClurkin was at the 
East End Meeting, as proven by certain witnesses, A, B, C, 
these witnesses would have had to appear before the Court 
and give their testimony. 

Then again, the second specification was that "He had 
avowed his connection with and approval of the East End 
Platform." That is another point. Now, if there had been 
witnesses who had heard him avow that in the first place, be- 
fore the Presbytery met, or in some other way coming to the 
knowledge of Presbytery, then these witnesses would have 
been required to appear before the Court and give testimony; 
and only in this way, in such case, could we have had testi- 
mony. The Presbytery had, as it believed honestly and 
sincerely, the testimony in on both these points; and that 
testimony being in, probation was complete; there was no 
need of any further probation. The specifications, therefore, 
could not be argued on the point of relevancy, when these 
specifications had already been maintained as relevant in 
substance, which can be done before the case is heard and 
the probation completed. That was the decision given by the 
Moderator. It was given time and again, and it is strange to 
me that it has not been comprehended on what ground the 
Moderator's decision was given. 

So then, in connection with this, it was further maintained 
that in the discussion of the relevancy the only point remain- 
ing to be dicussed would be, not what is the first part of the 
libel before the subsumption, but to discuss the subsumption 
in connection with the facts proved, and that would lead the 
persons to an argument, in the very necessity of the case, 
which would be against the principles of their own profes- 
sion; and that argument could not be heard until they had 
come to their defence. That was the ruling. When they 
came to their defence, they were permitted to say whatever 
they pleased against the principles of their profession. 



WEDNESDAY, JUNE 10. 



519 



But now I proceed further in reference to this, to bring the 
matter definitely before you. Notice that the specifications 
are true. They do not charge presence at the East End 
Meeting. Now once more in reference to this I wish to say 
that the appellant, as we will call him, this brother who 
makes the declinature, says he offered to give testimony him- 
self, and he offered to produce witnesses. How can a court 
act upon thai? If I am before a court and say that I am will- 
ing to do so, and 1 am willing to bring so and so ; but if I do 
not bring them, the court is not under obligations to do any- 
thing in the case, unless I positively bring testimony. Then 
if the court refuse to receive the testimony, it certainly would 
be open to the charge of injustice and wrong. The Court 
never refused for one moment to receive any testimony that 
Mr. McClurkin wished to present. I wish that to be under- 
stood. Not for one moment did the Pittsburgh Presbytery 
-decline to receive it. None was brought. It was stated., "I 
am willing to do this; 1 ' but he did not do it. It was said, "I 
am willing to bring persons here to testify;" but he did not 
bring them; they were never brought. Now, when that was 
not done, what could we do but take the testimony which 
appeared upon our own records'? 

But this is not all. That is only one specification. The 
other specification was the avowal of this connection; that is, 
giving support to the Platform of principles. Now, did we 
have any testimony ou that point? I wish to have it brought 
before this Court distinctly that we did. The letter is in our 
possession and can be produced before this Court, as it was 
before the Presbytery. I refer to the letter that Mr. McClur- 
kin wrote containing the basis of agreement that was before 
the Judicial Committee which had been sent to him, and 
which was returned with his signature. And that document 
with his own signature is in possession now of Pittsburgh 
Presbytery, and that document which was before Pittsburgh 
Presbytery containing his signature says, "I disavow the East 
End Platform as a bond of union." This we take to be a con- 
fession that he had adhered to it and still adhered to it, only 
that he disavowed it as a bond of union within the Eef ormed 
Presbyterian church. Now, that testimony was before the 
Court on the second specification; and when you are consid- 
ering a libel you must remember that that libel is made up of 
parts. 

I wish to read now from the old Scottish Law on this point, 
Steuart's Collections, page 401 : "The relevancy of the libel 
is the justness of the proposition, whether the matter of fact 
subsumed be proven or not." Now, concede that it was not 
proven that he had been present at the East End Meeting; 
•concede that it was not proven that on the floor of Presbytery 
he had avowed this connection and defended it; admit that 
that was not proven, yet this is what I wish to refer to : "Al- 



520 



STKJNOGRAPHIC report. 



though one article of the libel per se, be not relevant, yet if 
three of four articles conjunctive be relevant, the same may- 
be admitted to probation." And where there is a libel which 
has three or four articles, or a number of articles brought to- 
gether, one of them may be disregarded; one of them may 
even be regarded as irrelevant if proven ; one of them may 
he regarded as thrown out because its proof is not complete; 
but there remains another. The question is, whether there is 
anything remaining as a true libel. The Pittsburgh Presby- 
tery stands here, Fathers and Brethren, to say that whatever 
might have been the fact, we did not have the proof that it 
was contended could be brought. It was not brought. Then 
there remains this second part, as to the approving of the 
principles, of the East End Platform ; and we had the proof 
of that approval, in the document which Mr. McClurkin him- 
self had signed, disavowing it from that time on as being to 
him a bond of union or anything more than an opinion which 
he had retained, and to which he would give his approval. 
So that we have this in the second part that stands unchal- 
lenged. And not one word has been said against that. 

Now let me go still further in regard to the declinature. Of 
course it cut off any consideration of w T hat followed from the 
time there was the declinature of the authority of Presbytery. 
There could be no complaint entered by the person who 
made the declinature against the subsequent action, for he 
had declined the authority of the Court. So that no question 
with regard to the verdict finding him guilty of pursuing a 
divisive course can now come before this Court; and so no 
question can come before this Court with regard to the sen- 
tence of suspension, for these were the exercise- of the auth- 
ority of the Court subsequently to the time when the author- 
ity of the Court was declined, and he must take simply the 
reasons which are given in the declinature itself, and in the 
complaint, which are substantially the same reasons. Con- 
fining ourselves within these, I submit to you if there did not 
remain, even after all that has been claimed, as to which 
there has been no proof excepting the statement that has 
been made, sufficient- ground for Presbytery's action? Does it 
not appear that the Pittsburgh Presbytery, in the document 
with Mr. McClurkin's own signature to it, had so much of 
probation that the second specification in that libel was com- 
plete, and that the Court was warranted in going forward and 
issuing the case as it did, finding him guilty of pursuing divi- 
sive courses, and then carrying out what it subsequently did 
in the way of sentence of suspension, although, as I have al- 
ready said, these two matters do not and cannot come before 
us at this time. The only point is. whether there was ground 
for his declining the authority of the Court. And I submit 
to you. Fathers and Brethren, that if you sustain this decli- 
nature, then you cast upon the Presbytery this reproach and 



WEDNESDAY, JUNE 10. 



521 



odium, of having gone on with a case and doing such injus- 
tice as to justify this most extreme proceeding. For note 
what our Book says : "If the party entering such declinature 
fail to establish the ground of it before the higher court, he 
must abide, without the privilege of appeal, the decision of the 
inferior court. Of course, such declinature t hould be entered 
only in cases of great urgency, where there is no prospect of 
a fair trial." low, are you ready to say that this was a case 
of such urgency that there was no prospect whatever of a fair 
trial before Pittsburgh Presbytery? I still affirm before you 
that if he had offered that testimony ; if he had offered or de- 
manded that he should give testimony himself, or if he had 
said, naming any one, "Here is such a person whose testi- 
mony I ask to be received;" and then we had refused to re- 
ceive testimony from anybody, there would have been some 
reason to say that there was no prospect of a fair trial. But 
instead of this the Presbytery was ready to receive all the 
light that could be given on the subject, and never refused to 
receive one single ray of light that could have been offered. 
And it went forward and did its duty according to the light it 
did have. Can you say you will sustain this declinature, and 
thus charge this Presbytery with having such a disposition in 
reference to this matter that the person before it could have 
no prospect at all of a fair trial? 

The MODERATOR : Mr. McClurkin has the privilege now 
of replying to what has been said by Dr. McAllister. 

Rev. A. W. McCLURKEST : It is not necessary to go for- 
ward to say all I have to say, Mr. Moderator. It seems to me 
I can only say that I did not state that I was responsible for 
the adoption and publication of the East End Platform, nor 
did I defend the principle of that Platform. The signature to 
that letter disavowing the East End Platform as a bond of 
union within the Reformed Presbyterian church is again 
brought up as convincing proof that I attempted a defence of 
the East End Meeting or Platform, and my connection with 
it. Am I on trial for my disavowal of the East End Meeting 
and the East End Platform? The matter of adherence to the 
East End Platform and Meeting is a matter which Presbytery 
must proceed to prove. I am not bound, it appears to me, to 
prove a negative. ISTow, I just wish to say a few words in ex- 
planation of how it was I sent that letter. I considered the 
point that it might possibly be used in evidence against me as 
proving my responsibility for the adoption and publication of 
the East End Platform ; but it appeared to me that if I were 
to go through alJ the intricacy of all these points that there 
would be an endless amount of ecclesiastical litigation, and I 
never felt like fighting. I always could, from the time I was 
a boy in school, show a clean pair of heels when it came to a 
fight. And I believe still my best fighting ability rests in my 
feet. Now, it appeared to me that this whole matter would 



522 



STENOGRAPHIC REPORT. 



be cleared and settled by my signature to that agreement, 
by my agreeing to that agreement, and I agreed to it, and I 
thought the matter would end then and there. The matter 
has not ended there, and from the appearance I presume the 
matter will not end there. 

Rev. D. S. FARIS : I would like to move, before you vote, 
if the matter be in order at all, that he be allowed to bring 
his witnesses here by which he proposes to disprove the tes- 
timony offered by Presbytery. 

Mr. D. TORREXS: He has no right to do that. ]STo man 
has a right to disprove another man's charge. It is the party 
bringing the charge who has to bring the proof. 

Rev. D. S. FARIS: I understand a man has a right to 
bring witnesses to defend himself. I understand he said he 
had witnesses, and that he could defend himself. He neg- 
lected to bring them before Presbytery. I move now, if it be 
in order, that he be allowed to bring them now and here be- 
fore he closes this speech. 

Rev. J. S. T. MLLLIGAN: He can do it, by plenty. I do 
not think it the wise thing to do, however. The Court must 
bring the evidence and prove the party guilty, or else he is 
mot guilty. 

Rev. D. S. FARIS: The evidence of the Court and its as- 
sertion is conclusive if it is not disproved. 

Mr. TORREJSTS: How is it conclusive? We have heard Dr. 
McAllister say, within 

The MODERATOR: The motion is that Mr. McClurkin be 
allowed the privilege of producing witnesses upon the point 
in dispute. 

(The motion was then put to viva voce vote and carried.) 

The MODERATOR : Mr. McClurkin has the opportunity of 
producing witnesses. 

Rev. D. S. FARIS : That he be allowed to bring the witness 
to disprove the charges in the libel here and now in this 
speech, and before his closes this speech. 

Rev. J. C. SMITH: Let it be understood he is not com- 
pelled to do it. It may be his witnesses are not here. 

Rev. D. S. FARIS : I understand he has his witness here. 

Dr. T. P. STEVEJSTSON" : I understand it is not to refute 
the charges; it is whether the minute is correct. 

Rev. D. S. FARIS : My statement was, the Court's evidence 
was conclusive if it is not disproved. 

The MODERATOR : There is a statement made in the 
Minutes of Pittsburgh Presbytery which Mr. McClurkin de- 
clares is not a true Minute in his case, and he has witnesses by 
which he can prove that it is not true. The point made by 
Mr. Faris is that the Minute of Presbytery is evidence before 
this Court unless it is disproved. 

Dr. GEORGE: I would like to raise this point: I under- 
stand that the defender of Pittsburgh Presbytery has asserted 



WEDNESDAY, JUNE 10. 



523 



that this opportunity was afforded to Mr. McClurkin in Pitts- 
burgh Presbytery, to do what it is proposed he shall do here, 
and he did not do so. I do not know under what provision 
of the law it is provided he shall produce it here, as if it were 
in support of his declinature. That is my point. I can see 
how it might be a reason for a review of the case afterwards, 
but not as a matter in support of his declinature. 

Prof. D. B. WILLSON": Is not the production of witnesses 
the trial of a case? 

The MODERATOR : It would seem to be. 

Rev. A. W. McCLURKIN : It appears to me the course for 
me to follow would be to call upon the senior prosecutor be- 
fore Pittsburgh Presbytery to testify, and if he can testify 
that I did state I attended the East End Meeting, and adhered 
to its Platform, and if he can testify to that, I do not know 
but indirect testimonv will be the way in which I will have 
to present my case. I do not see any of those present here 
whom I can call upon to testify. 

The MODERATOR : Mr. McClurkin states that he does not 
see any one in the house whom he is able to call to testify as 
to the incorrectness of the Minute. 

Dr. GEORGE : I think it is unfair to brother McClurkin 
and to Presbytery to call for the testimony here. 

Rev. D. S. FARIS: We do not demand it, of course. 

Dr. GEORGE : I do not think it should be, in any way, a 
reflection upon him, because he cannot do so. 

The MODERATOR : It will be understood, it is because the 
parties are not in the house. Mr. McClurkin will go on with 
his reply. 

Rev. A. W. McCLURKIN: If these other statements are 
called in question I can produce my father, who is known 
here, as a witness to substantiate what I have stated, with 
regard to the signature to that paper disavowing the East End 
Platform and the East End Meeting. I wish you consider 
this: that in the absence of my statement being recorded 
upon the Minutes of the Pittsburgh Presbytery, my denial 
that I made those statements is sufficient to invalidate the 
libel. I think that point is established. My own denial that 
I made of those statements is sufficient to invalidate the libel 
in the absence of a witness to support those statements. 

Dr. MCALLISTER : I just wish to refer to two points. 
First, with regard to this last statement, that the denial of the 
person himself was sufficient. Now if you take that as a rule 
of procedure in any court you will not be able to convict any 
person of anything whatever. Just let me show you how it 
would work. Here were a number of persons, who were all 
connected together, (and I will refer to that more fully in 
another connection), all linked together in a certain attitude, 
and in a certain course; these persons are all mentioned to- 
gether in the Minute of Pittsburgh Presbytery, as having at- 



524 



STENOGRAPHIC REPORT. 



tempted a certain thing. This Minute, as to what these 
persons all did was repeatedly read and was not denied. It 
was read time and again at different meetings of Presbytery. 

Rev. J. C. SMITH : This is a new matter. 

Dr. MCALLISTER : All ihis is in reply to his denial being 
sufficient to meet the Minute. He says his denial is sufficient. 
I say the denial of any man who is accused is not sufficient 
when there is testimony of this nature. He must bring posi- 
tive testimony apart from his own denial. He failed to do it, 
and that although the way was open to do it. Now, this leads 
me on to the next point, in regard to this "disavowing," 
about which so much has been said in the way of rebuttal. I 
would ask, What would be thought if such a man as my 
friend, Prof. Willson. were called upon to sign that paper, 
"I hereby disavow the East End Platform as a bond of 
union?" What would be thought of it? W T ould anyone ever 
ask Prof. Willson to sign anything of this kind? Would any- 
body ever have asked the Rev. Mr. Crozier to thus disavow 
the East End Platform as a bond of union? 

Rev. H. P. McCLURKIN : If they were charged. 

Dr. MCALLISTER : The absurdity would be in charging 
men of that character. 

Rev. H. P. McCLURKIN" : You are charging A. W. Mc- 
Clurkin. 

Dr. MCALLISTER : How comes it there was the necessity 
for that disavowal? The necessity was the relation to the 
persons connected with that Platform, as it was understood 
to be a bond of union, and hence the necessity for a disavowal 
on the part of one, against whom there was any such ground 
of accusation whatever. Where the charge was made, making 
such a disavowal necessary, there must have been some basis. 
Why, if anybody would come to me and say, "You give your 
agreement of disavowal of that;" I would scorn it. I would 
say, "What right have you to charge me for one moment with 
ever having had any connection with that to require my 
disavowal?" If anybody would send me a letter or paper, 
saying to me "You sign that paper as a basis of agreement," 
I would say, "I have given no grounds whatever to justify 
such a procedure." 

Rev. J. C SMITH: I rise to a point of order: It is out of 
order to speak about that paper before the paper be produced. 

Dr. GEORGE: I asked the brother who has the paper to 
bring it here. It would require the length of time it requires 
to go to my room. 

Dr. MCALLISTER : It has been referred to under the former 
discussion. 

Dr. GEORGE : I am in possession of it and will bring it 
here from my room. Mr. McClurkin has admitted in the 
hearing of the Court that he did sign it, and he has explained 
how it was he signed it. What further testimony did we 



WEDNESDAY, JUNE 10. 



525 



need? He said that that paper was received when he was out 
at his father's. 

Rev. H. P. McCLURKIN" : I am here to make an explana- 
tion in regard to that paper. 

Dr. MCALLISTER: I am perfectly willing to hear any 
explanation. 

Rev. H. P. McCLURKIN": My son came home shortly after 
the meeting of Presbytery on the 15th of October, and of 
course he related to me fully what had taken place at that 
Presbytery. He stated to me that there was a paper from his 
congregation, (New Alexandria,) and the Minutes of Presby- 
tery will show that there was such a paper, and that he made 
a statement before the Presbytery in regard to that paper and 
not in regard to anything else. — the East End Meeting, the 
East End Platform, or anything of that kind. While he was 
there, Rev. J. W. Sproull wrote a letter stating to him that 
the other six who had spoken on the 15th of October before 
Presbytery were before the Judicial Committee of Pittsburgh 
Presbytery and they had agn ed to certain things. And 
Brother Sproull wrote to him that if he would agree to the 
statements that were made there, and sign his name to that, 
that he would report to Presbytery, and all the difficulty that 
had been before Presbytery on the 15th of October would be 
settled. 

My son said to me, -'This has reference to a matter that I had 
nothing to do with, — the publishing and the advocating of the 
East End Platform. " He stated that to me. He received the 
letter in the evening, by the last mail. He said, he did not feel 
like agreeing to that settlement, because it was a settlement 
of a matter he had nothing whatever to do with, the publish^ 
ing of the East End Platform and the advocating of the East 
End Platform. He stated to me again that all the statement 
he made before Pittsburgh Presbytery was in regard to the 
paper which came from his own congregation to Presbytery, 
and there was no reference in that to the East End Platform 
from first to last. There was reference in that to the vote of 
the seventeen in last Synod. In the morning we read that 
letter. We looked at the agreement that the six men had 
engaged to keep. I understood that they had subscribed to 
it; though I don't know that the letter said so. The state- 
ment was that they had agreed to these three propositions 
disavowing the East End Platform and other things. My son 
still said to me in the morning, '"Father, I have nothing to do 
with it, and I wonder at Dr. Sproull sending to me an agree- 
ment on points that I stated nothing about and have nothing 
to do with, the publishing of the East End Platform, and the 
vindicating of that Platform before the Pittsburgh Presby- 
tery." I said to him, after reading the letter over a number 
Of times, and I urged him to return an answer that he was 
perfectly willing to give his name to an agreement of that 



526 



STENOGRAPHIC REJfOKT. 



kind if it was going to settle all the difficulties that had arisen 
in the Pittsburgh .Presbytery. His mother came in and talked 
to him in regard to the same matter. And he stated to us 
both, u Iow, probably if I agree to this settlement it will be 
brought against me at some future time as evidence that I 
have to do with the publishing of the East End Platform and 
the vidication of that Platform before the Pittsburgh Presby- 
tery." 

Now, these are the facts of the case. This is the way he 
came to give his name to that paper. He was in difficulty, as 
you know, before the Pittsburgh Presbytery in regard to a 
matter that came from his Own congregation, and he stated 
to that Presbytery that he wished to be released from that 
congregation, because he did not desire to make the least 
difficulty, or cause the least division anywhere in the church 
from anything that he had done. And it was said to him at 
that Presbytery, on the 15th of October, that he had better 
wait and see whether he had any right to preach before he 
talked about a dissolution of the pastoral relation with that 
congregation. 

Now, as soon as he received this letter from J. W. Sproull T 
that the matter was settled if he agreed to that settlement, I 
urged him to agree to it. Why, of course I could agree to 
that settlement. I was one of the seventeen, and I could have 
agreed to that settlement although I had nothing to do what- 
ever with the East End Meeting first or last. I could have 
given my name to that settlement. And it was stated in the 
letter. Understanding that, he send word to a friend in the 
bounds of Pittsburgh Presbytery to have his dissolution of 
the pastoral relation granted to him at that meeting of Presby- 
tery. They called a meeting of Presbytery. He sent word 
to that effect to have it brought before that Presbytery, be- 
cause now the matter was settled, so far as he was concerned, 
and he wanted to be released from the congregation as he had 
stated in the fall, and as he had stated to the congregation 
before Presbytery met. And the friend says that he brought 
it before that meeting of Presbytery, and the Moderator of 
Presbytery said that that Presbytery was called for a special 
purpose and could not attend to anything else, and he did not 
get the dissolution of the pastoral relation from the congrega- 
tion at that meeting. And he did not get that dissolution 
until the 14th or 15th of January, and it was then by consent. 

And I am more particular upon this point because it has 
been published that he did not" do what he stated to the 
congregation of New Alexandria that he would do ; but he 
did carry it out to the very letter. And I have wondered 
when fathers and brethren were talking about the disruption 
of congregations that they could not make any exception at 
all of my son not making any disturbance anywhere. He 
says that he never made any statement in regard to his being 



WEDNESDAY, JUNE 10. 



527 



connected with the East End Platform or publishing or vin- 
dicating it; that he did not do anything of that kind before 
Pittsburgh Presbytery on the 15th of October; and I thought, 
when he was called upon to bring his witnesses, that he would 
call upon all these young men who were there and heard the 
statement that he made, and knew all about his connection 
with any of them. The matter is very plain before my own 
mind, and I have never yet used language to convey thoughts 
that are in my .own mind : but I think it must be clear before 
you all that that paper that he is spoken of as signing, or 
agreeing to, or of giving his name to, to settle the East End 
difficulty, was not in the first libel ; it was only the state- 
ments before the Presbytery on the 15th of October that were 
brought forward as testimony. This other matter comes in 
afterward. 

A MEMBEK : I move the previous question. 

The MODERATOR: The previous question is not in order. 
Dr. McAllister has the floor. 

Dr. MCALLISTER : I just wish to take the point up where 
our honored father has left it. I will take the construction 
which I noted down from what he himself stated. He said 
that Dr. J. W. Sproull wrote to his son that the other six who 
had spoken before the Pittsburgh Presbytery had agreed to 
this basis, and because the other six who had spoken before 
the Pittsburgh Presbytery had agreed to this basis, Dr. 
Sproull wrote to Mr. McClurkin as another one who was con- 
nected with the other six, and who had also spoken. Now 
what does all this mean? It simply means that this seventh 
one was connected with the other six ; that if this seventh 
one had been in Allegheny when the Judicial Committee met, 
this seventh one would have been there to meet with the 
Judicial Committee ; and that this was the arrangement made 
by the Presbytery. You see how it all hangs together. You 
can't take one part of this and separate it from the rest, for it 
is all concatenated; it is all linked; it is all one piece. 

Now recollect, that according to the Minute of Presbytery 
at the regular meeting in October, these seven persons were 
named. Inasmuch as Presbytery desired to effect a reconcilia- 
tion, a committee was appointed to meet with these seven. 
The seven were all to meet with the Judicial Committee. The 
Judicial Committee made its arrangements and expected to 
have the entire seven with them. One of the seven was ab- 
sent. That was noted at the time of the meeting of the Com- 
mittee. When the basis that was agreed upon in that Judicial 
Committee had been accepted by those that were present, it 
was felt that the other one of the seven must have the same 
opportunity: and accordingly tbe chairman of that Commit- 
tee wrote to the remaining one of the seven; and in writing 
we have the statement (and I wish the letter were here or a 
copy of it) which implies that the other six had spoken before 



5 IS 



STENOGRAPHIC REPORT. 



Pittsburgh Presbytery, as father McClurkin himself says; and 
which implies that this seventh one had also spoken, and ac- 
cordingly he had agreed to this same basis. Xow if he had 
not spoken, why did he not in the letter repl^ving to that then 
and there say that he had not spoken. That was a good op- 
portunity to make the denial in connection with his reply. 
It was not made then. Xow. all this simply links together: 
and when the Minute came up subsequently, still there was 
no denial made, and thus it goes on point by point and step 
by step. So that I maintain that this disavowing of the Plat- 
form in view of all these circumstances implies a connection; 
and it is not simply a mere inference that is not to be re- 
garded, but it is a matter of evidence. It was the disavowing 
of a certain paper as a bond of union, and this testimony 
remained before the Court. Even if the other testimony that 
it is said was offered but was not produced had been produced 
and had proven conclusively to the mind of the Presbytery 
that there was a mistake about that Minute as to what had 
been attempted in the way of a defence: even if witnesses had 
been brought forward aud their testimony had been taken and 
it had been proven to Presbyter's satisfaction that such an 
attempt was not made, there would still have remained the 
other part of the libel, that there was support given to the 
East End Platform, as was proven b^v the disavowal of it as a 
bond of union. So that there would still have been ground of 
proceeding as against one who had given maintenance and 
support to the principles of a Platform, antagonistic to the 
very life and integrity of the Covenanter church. Now, in 
view of all these facts can you throw back upon Presbytery, 
by sustaining this declinature, the censure that it has been so 
conducting the case that there was no possibilit}^ of a fair 
trial? I leave it with your sense of righteousness and truth to 
ask yourselves whether you can do that. I leave it with you 
to give your own decision. 

The MODERATOR: The next thing in order is to ask 
questions of the parties. 

Rev. J. McCRACKEN": I wish to ask the Moderator of that 
Court: Did Mr. McClurkin state positively that he did not 
make any statements bearing on that point? 

Dr. MCALLISTER: I do not so understand him. He said 
the Court did not have the evidence that he did so do. 

Rev. Mr. McCRACKEX: Was he informed at that time 
that he proposed to bring evidence that this was the time, 
and the way was open for him? 

Dr. MCALLISTER : There was no formal statement of that 
kind. 

Rev. Mr. McCRACKEX: Nothing of that kind at all? 
Dr. MCALLISTER : Xo formal statement, but it was under- 
stood that anybody had the right to do that. If there had 



WEDNESDAY, JUNE 10. 



529 



been any one offered, the testimony would have been heard 
then and there. 

Rev. J. McCRACKEN : I simply ask the question. 

Dr. MCALLISTER : I wish to make a statement in that 
connection; no one was offered as a witness. 

Rev. J. McCRACKEX : I ask the question, if he was in- 
formed the witness would be received? 

Dr. MCALLISTER : He did not need to be informed ; he 
was not informed in express words. 

Dr. T. P. STEVENSOX : I move that the asking of ques- 
tions cease and that the parties be removed. 

(The motion being duly seconded was carried by a viva 
voce vote.) 

Rev. Mr. WYLIE : I move the previous question. 
A MEMBER : I move that the speeches be limited to two 
minutes. 

Dr. MCALLISTER : There must be a motion when the 
parties are removed as to what is to be done ; the other 
motion is to hear. 

Rev. D. S. FARIS : I would make the following motion : In 
the case of the declinature and complaint of the Rev. A. W. 
McClurkin, we find no reason for sustaining the declinature 
and complaint, but inasmuch as he claims to be able to dis- 
prove the evidence upon which the Presbytery made its deci- 
sion, we order that the matter be returned to the Pittsburgh 
Presbytery, and that they be directed to re-open the case. 

(This motion being duly seconded was carried by a rising 
vote.) 

Rev. Mr. McCRACKEX : Does that leave Mr. McClurkin 
under suspension. 

Rev. D. S. FARIS: It leaves him just where he was until 
they re- open the case and determine where he is. 

Rev. Mr. McCRACKEX : This case is so encumbered with 
doubts (and I myself have the gravest doubt as to the testi- 
mony) that I do not feel like leaving Mr. McClurkin under 
suspension. The case is extremely uncertain. 

A MEMBER : I feel precisely the same. 

Rev. P, H. WYLIE : I move a reconsideration of the vote. 

(This motion being duly seconded w r as put to vote and 
carried.) 

Rev. P. H. WYLIE : I move that this declinature be sus- 
tained. 

Dr. MCALLISTER : The original motion is before us and I 
call for the ayes and nays. 

(The original motion was read by request.) 

Rev. P. H. WYLIE : In defence of my motion I want to 
make a few remarks. 

The MODERATOR : Do you offer that as an amendment? 



530 



STENOGRAPHIC REPORT. 



Rev. P. H. WYLIE : The motion before the house is the 
motion Mr. Faris made. 

The MODERATOR : Yes, sir. 

Rev. P. H. WYLIE : In opposition then to that motion I 
will make some remarks. In the first place Mr. McClurkin 
insists on his denial that he had approved the East End Plat- 
form. 

Mr. W. T. MILLER : I rise to make a motion that speeches 
be limited to five minutes. 

The MODERATOR: No motion is in order while the 
speaker has the floor. 

Rev. D. S. FARIS : Does that motion of mine not hold over - 
from yesterday? 

The MODERATOR : It is quite difficult to know what that 
motion was intended to refer to. 

Rev. P. H. WYLIE: So long asMr. McClurkin denies that 
he did give approbation to the East End Meeting and Plat- 
form and it is not proven that he did, his denial would make 
him an innocent man: so that his reasons for declinature 
would be sustained on that ground. Then further: In regard 
to the matter of signing that paper, he signs a paper that he 
disavows the East End Platform. He makes a clean matter 
of that disavowal, that he did it on the hypothesis that that 
was to settle the question. Now, there can be no inference 
from that that he was guilty of having anything to do with 
that Platform. It is entirely fallacious to argue from that 
that he did give his approbation to that Platform. And then, 
further, if there was anything wrong in avowing that Plat- 
form, the disavowal sets him forth as an innocent man from 
the time he disavows it. So that having made the disavowal 
of that Platform, then from that time forth until some new 
cause should arise he should be considered as an innocent 
man, it appears to me. It is most fallacious to argue that 
because he disavows it that therefore he had been guilty. 
His disavowal makes him an innocent man from the time of s 
his disavowal. And the very fact that he did disavow that 
matter renders it a matter that is doubtful about his being 
again charged. 

And then further, Mr. Moderator, in regard to his right to 
decline the authority at that time. Any one concerned in a 
trial may decline the authority of a judicatory which under- 
takes to judge a case over which they have no cognizance. 
Now, Mr. McClurkin did not make any point on that. But 
the second part is, 4 'or which acts in any way illegally." 
Now there is the point Mr. McClurkin bases his declinature 
on — that the Presbytery was acting illegally in his case. And 
had he not reason to decline when they were bringing it as a 
foundation, or as an argument, that he was guilty because he 
had disavowed the thing? Why certainly it was most illegal 
to bring forward the fact of his disavowal of it as a ground 



WEDNESDAY, JUNE 10. 



531 



why he should be charged. And therefore he had a perfect 
right to decline the authority of Presbytery, and I am ready 
to vote to sustain his declinature. 

Mr. W. T. MILLER: I move the previous question. 

A MEMBER: I have listened to this discussion through- 
out, and I understand that he never gave his assent to making 
public the opinions or principles of the East End Platform. 
If that is the case, how can Mr. McClurkin be guilty? How 
can the complaint of this trouble, which has spread all 
through the church, be placed to Mr. McClurkin, if he did 
have some connection with the East End Platform? He has 
stated here before this Court, that he never gave his assent, 
if I understand him right, to that matter of publishing, and 
as far as he is concerned it would have been a quiet matter. 
I gather that idea from what Mr. McClurkin has said. 

The ASSISTENT CLERK : I would like to read the rec- 
ord: "Statements were volunteered by Revs. J. R. J. Milli- 
gan, H. W. Reed, E. M. Milligan, A. W. McClurkin, O. B. 
Milligan, W. L. C. Samson, H. W. Temple, all of whom at- 
tempted a defence of their connection with the adoption and 
publication of the Platform referred to in the memorials." 

Rev. J. C. SMITH: I cannot vote to say there is no cause 
for sustaining this declinature. I must say he had good 
cause; I must say that the whole circumstances to me are as 
clear as noon- day, that Pittsburgh Presbytery did 1 ot do 
right in that case. That Presbytery comes before us with a 
statement of a general character, and that statement ought 
not to have been admitted in any of the cases except they all 
had avowed their presence. That is the only thing that 
justifies the production of that Minute in any of the cases. 
But in this case, when he positively denied it was true, and 
when he offered to bring witnesses to prove it was not true, 
then they were bound to see that justice was done ; they were 
bound to offer him the opportunity, and not only that but to 
call for the testimony. It is not the business of a Presbytery 
to convict a man ; it is the business of Presbytery to set at 
the truth. And when he stood there saying that that Minute 
was wrong, that he had not heard it before, and that he was 
prepared to prove that it was wrong, and they did not call 
for a witness, but went on and tried the case, I say that was 
the perpetration of injustice and wrong, and that it put it 
beyond his power to get justice under the circumstances. 

Besides, it would be very wrong for us now to remand this 
to Pittsburgh Presbytery, and continue him under censure, 
perhaps, for six months before a trial can be had. Now, I 
cannot vote for this motion. I will vote for the principles of 
the church and for justice, and I will vote to condemn men 
when they acknowledge their guilt in their adherence to cer- 
tain things; but when it is not proved, and when it is denied, 
I cannot say that there was no ground for declinature. 



532 



STENOGRAPHIC REPORT. 



Eev. J. C. McFEETEES: If I understood Mr. McClurkin, 
he offered to bring proof in Presbytery that he had made no 
statement admitting that he was connected with that East 
End Platform. The proof was on that point. Now there is 
another point : Whether he himself was connected with that 
or not. We would not ask a man to admit he was connected 
with it. We would not expect a man on trial always to make 
an admission like that. But if our young brother had made 
a speech like his father made in this Court, this matter would 
have been settled in a very few minutes. His father, if I 
understood him, stated that his son, in conversation with 
him, declared that he had nothing to do with the Platform. 
Now that is the point. If a man be innocent, I ask, is it not 
right, is it not manly, for him to stand up in a church court 
and say he is innocent? If he had made a speech like his 
father has made, I would have no difficulty at all in voting 
on the matter clearly in favor of Mr. McClurkin; but he hav- 
ing acknowledged having this attitude towards that Platf orm, 
has not made any such intimation to this Court from begin- 
ning to end. 

Kev. D. S. FARIS: I do not see any need for my relative, 
friend and brother to get so excited about this matter. The 
reason I make this motion is because our Book does decidedly 
discourage men from taking out declinatures; and it says 
that a declinature ought to be taken out only in the most 
urgent cases. My next reason for it is the fact that if he had 
let his declinature alone, and remained in the Presbytery, he 
undoubtedly would have had the opportunity to bring these 
circumstances out on the floor of Presbytery ; and without he 
can disprove the testimony, we are under no obligation to 
re- open the case. According to the Book if the declinature 
be not sustained, he is under the decision of Presbytery. But 
we say, inasmuch as he claims to be able to disprove the 
statements made by the Presbytery, therefore, they be ordered 
to re-open the case and give him the opportunity. This res- 
olution, therefore, is in the nature of a compromise. We can- 
not compromise on the first part. The law discourages men 
from taking out declinatures. He has taken his declinature, 
and he and everybody else, by our decision, ought to be made 
to feel that he has not a right to take this step except in the 
most urgent cases. In order to relieve this case we further 
order that it be remanded to Pittsburgh Presbytery to re-open 
the case. 

Eev. J. (J. SMITH: When? 

Eev. D. S. FAEIS: When it is convenient for them, or we 
may decide that. According to the Book when his declina- 
ture is not sustained he remains without redress under the 
judgment of the Presbytery. Of course, this motion leaves 
him under that judgment until the Presbytery have time to 



WEDNESDAY, JUNE 10. 



533 



meet and re- open the case, and decide it according to what 
evidence they may get. 

Eev. THOMAS ACHESON : I move the previous question. 

(This motion, being duly seconded, was carried by a viva 
voce vote.) 

Eev. Mr. JOHNSTON : Does Pittsburgh Presbytery vote 
on this motion? 
The MODERATOR : The Moderator thinks not. 
(Motion read by request.) 

A MEMBER : I would like an explanation; if we vote that 
we find no reason to sustain the declinature I would vote one 
way ; in regard to returning him to Pittsburgh Presbytery I 
would vote another way. 

The MODERATOR : Shall this question be divided? 

Rev. F. M. FOSTER : A vote to sustain the declinature 
and then return him to Pittsburgh Presbytery leaves him in 
the same. unfortunate position he was. 

(The motion, as read, was carried by a standing vote of 
fifty- one to forty -seven.) 

Mr. TORRENS : 1 ask for the calling of the roll. 

The MODERATOR : The question has been decided, and 
you cannot call for the calling of the roll now. What is now 
the will of the Court? 

Rev. T. P. STEVENSON : I move the previous question 
on the entire remaining portion of the resolution of Rev. 
Mr. McCracken. 

Prof. WILLSON : If it is in order I move the indefinite 
postponement of the remainder of that paper. 

Dr. J. W. SPROULL: I do not understand that. What 
was that paper? 

Prof. WILLSON: It is the resolutions attached to the 
paper. 

Dr. J. W. SPROULL : That is all right. 
Rev. D. S. FARIS : I think it is necessary to take up the 
motion because of giving reasons for this action. 



question. The Book says when the court reverses, reasons 
shall be given ; but does not say anything about it when it 
affirms the decision of the lower court. 
Rev. D. S. FARIS: All right. 

The MODERATOR : What is now the will of the Court? 

Dr. H. P. McCLURKLN : I rise to a question of privilege. 
I believe it has been stated my son remains under suspension 
until the issuing of the case by the Pittsburgh Presbytery. I 
wish the Court would answer this question : How far does 
this suspension reach? Does it reach any further than the 
Reformed Presbyterian church? j understood the defender of 
Pittsburgh Presbytery, Dr. R. J. George, to say that he did 
advise some of the brethren that they were not suspended 
from the ministry outside of that church; and the other de- 




Moderator would like to ask a 



534 



STENOGRAPHIC REPORT. 



fender of Pittsburgh Presbytery was very decided in regard 
to that matter, that it extended everywhere. Now I would 
like that the Synod would decide that matter. 
flRev. J. McCRACKEN: I move the suspension be removed 
until the Pittsburgh Presbytery meets to try the case. 

(This motion, being duly seconded, was put to a vote and 
carried.) 

Dr. MCALLISTER : I think that is perfectly right. 

Dr. R. J. GEORGE : I want, as a question of privilege, to 
allude to a remark made in connection with this case. I said 
in reference to that act of suspension, that in returning home 
I had stated to Brother Reed in answer to his question, I 
thought he was not excluded from preaching outside of our 
church, but I also stated, that when the matter came before 
the Presbytery afterwards, as to the extent of it, that it was 
made clear the meaning of the Court was otherwise, and that 
Presbytery itself had interpreted its action as excluding them 
from preaching altogether. 

Rev. J. C. K. MILLIGAjST : I wish to present the follow- 
ing dissent from the action taken this morning; "The under- 
signed humbly but earnestly protest against and dissent from 
the action of Synod in refusing to sustain the appeals of the 
ministers suspended by Pittsburgh Presbytery for the follow- 
ing reasons: 1. Because the appellants were suspended as 
being guilty of rejecting the doctrine and practice of politi- 
cal dissent from immoral constitutions as a term of commu- 
nion, and of refusing to apply the Scriptural doctrine to the 
U. S. Constitution. Yet the East End Platform, the ground 
of their suspension, expressly accepts the Testimony and the 
Terms of Communion, which set forth our entire covenanted 
position ia this matter; and it only disclaims the binding 
obligation of resolutions, or explanations, that are not in- 
cluded in the standards, such as those of 1888, allowing mem- 
bers to sit on jury, and those of 1889, allowing voting on 
amendments, against which many dissented as a violation of 
our Testimony and Covenant. The real contention of the 
appellants was that the doctrine of political dissent contained 
in the Testimony is Scriptural and a term of communion; 
that it is the right and duty of the church to apply this in 
clear testimony against national immoralities, and by Scriptu- 
ral terms of communion; but that her witness-bearing reso- 
lutions and explanations, until they are explicitly placed in 
the terms of communion, are not binding as such. 2. Because 
the suspension of these ministers, on account of their denial 
of the obligation of such Synodical resolutions is a judicial 
decision which makes these explanations a term of commu- 
nion in violation of Presbyterian law and order which require 
the overture and adoption by the church of every such term; 
in violation of the Confession of Faith, xxxi. 4, which says 
that Synods 'are not to be made the rule of faith or prac- 



WEDNESDAY, JUNE 10. 



535 



tice;' in violation of the Testimony, Ch. iii., Error 6, which 
denies that ecclesiastical authority, the writings or traditions 
of the ancients, can be admitted, in whole or in part, as the 
supreme judge of religious controversy, and xxii, 4, which 
asserts that 'Terms of Christian Communion should embrace 
nothing but what is Divine Truth;' and in violation of com- 
mon justice which forbids an ex-post-facto law to exclude 
from the church those who have been regularly received and 
adhere to the' original terms of communion. 4. Because the 
suspension upon this ground restrains all discussions of cur- 
rent interpretations of our subordinate standards, and all 
progress in our Testimony, even when there is simply a state- 
ment of belief made to correct public misrepresentations. 
5. Because the process conducted by Pittsburgh Presbytery 
was irregular : 1st. In that the preliminaries of the trial led 
the accused to believe they were deceived and taken advan- 
tage of at every step. 2nd. In that the libel was decided to 
be admissible without a witness cited, or a word of confession 
attested as having been made. 3rd. In that the accused were 
not allowed to discuss the relevancy, and that the relevancy 
was decided on the ground of the charge and not of the speci- 
fications which must sustain the charge. 4th. In that they 
convicted the accused without proof that the East End Plat- 
form was contrary to the standards, or proof of any other 
divisive act. 5th. In that they suspended the accused after 
they had taken an appeal and while they were carrying it for- 
ward to the superior court. For these and other reasons we 
solemnly protest against the Synod's action, appeal to the 
Head of the church, declare our adherence to the true cov- 
enanted position of our standards, and demand the right to 
have and enjoy all the privileges of the church as guaranteed 
by our Testimony, xxi, 5 : 'If the majority should violate the 
terms upon which church members were united, it is lawful 
for the minority to testify against the defection, and to walk 
by the rule of their former attainments.' " 
J. C. K. Milligan, H. P. McClurkin, J. S. T. Milligan, 
J. F. Carson. J. J. Huston, S. Dell Johnston, 

James Warnock, David Torrens, Thomas Logan. 
Joseph Stevenson, J. P. Thompson, J. M. McElhinney, 
Pobert McAfee, J. T. Mahaffy, X. M. Johnston. 
Rev. F. M. FOSTER : I would like to know just the force 
of a dissent when it is spread upon the records of the Court. 
In JSew York Presbytery I brought some matters before the 
Presbytery that were in a dissent last year, and it was stated 
by one or two of the brethren that the court had uniformly 
accepted those declarations, and consequently it was not 
proper to bring them in. I would like to know if they come 
in by any authority. 

Rev. J. S. T. MILLIGAN: It is one of the dearest rights 
of Presbyterianism. 



536 



STENOGRAPHIC REPORT. 



Rev. F. M. FOSTER: Where is the authority to dissent? 

Rev. J. S. T. MILLIGAN: The right of dissent is one of 
the dearest rights of Presbyterianism. 

The MODERATOR : What is now the will of the Court? 

Mr. D. TORRENS : I have a dissent which I wish to pre- 
sent ard ask the clerk to read. 

(The clerk read the dissent presented.) 

Rev. D. S. FARIS: I move the dissent be not entered on 
the Minutes. 

(Motion seconded.) 

Dr. R. B. CANNON: Was there notice given? 
The CLERK : There was notice. 

The MODERATOR : It is more in the shape of a personal 
charge, and therefore it is not a dissent at all. 

Rev. D. S. FARIS : If there is any doubt about the fact, it 
might be sent to a committee to report on. I did not hear 
anything that had anv relation to the case. 

Rev. J. S. T. MULLIGAN: With instructions to reply to it. 
I think that is good. 

Rev. D. S. FARIS: With instructions to reply to it or to 
dismiss it. 

The MODERATOR : Do you make that as a motion? 

Rev. D. S. FARIS: Perhaps I had better. 

The MODERATOR : The motion is that this be put in the 
hands of a committee. 

Prof. WILLSON : A dissent is a dissent against the action 
of Synod; it does not go into a lot of other things. 

(The motion of Rev. Mr. Faris was then put to a vote and 
declared carried.) 

Mr. W. T. MILLER : I move we take up the regular busi- 
ness. 

Mr. J. S. ARTHUR: I hope that will be withdrawn, and 
we will take up the other appeal. 

(It was then moved and seconded that the appeal of J. A. 
Burnett be taken up, which motion was put to a vote and 
carried ) 

The MODERATOR : The clerk will read the appeal to- 
gether with the extracts of the proceedings of the Court in 
the case of John A. Burnett. 

(Thereupon the clerk read the papers referred to by the 
Moderator.) 

The MODERATOR : Are there any answers to these reasons 
for appeal? 

Dr. MCALLISTER: No, sir, there are no answers. 
Rev. D. S. FARIS: I move that the other appeal be read 
now. 

The MODERATOR : By consent that can be done. I think 
the motion included both. 

(The clerk read the second appeal of John A. Burnett to- 
gether with the extracts of the proceedings in Presbytery.) 



WEDNESDAY, JUNE 10. 



537 



Dr. McALLISTEK : If you will indulge me in a statement 
just at this point, I will say that the representatives of Pitts- 
burgh Presbytery, in order to save the time of this Court, 
whose patience must be taxed beyond endurance, are per- 
fectly willing to leave the questions at issue to you on the 
reading of Mr. Burnett's own statement of them, and let the 
vote be taken without any discussion whatever. If it is 
thought wise to refer to any of the other points, as to the 
matter of a quorum, Presbytery is ready to answer, and to 
show that we proceeded according to the law and order of the 
church. On the questions themselves, we are ready to sub- 
mit the matter to a vote of Synod without a word on either 
side. 

Eev. D. S. FARIS : T have a question to ask the defenders 
of Pittsburgh Presbytery. Has Mr. Burnett respected the 
sentence? 

Dr. MCALLISTER : He has not. It is a matter of public 
notoriety that he has been holding services in Wilkinsburg in 
a hall at the same hours at which services are held in the 
Wilkinsburg congregation, and that a number of the mem- 
bers of Wilkinsburg congregation have left and gone away 
from their own congregation to these services held at the 
same hour in another place. 

Mr. BURNETT: Does that statement of Dr. McAllister 
prove I have not observed the sentence? 

Dr. MCALLISTER : It is a matter of public notoriety, and 
it has been so brought before this church that it does not 
need proof. 

Rev. D. S. FAR.S: I move that these appeals be dis- 
missed. 

Rev. J. C. SMITH: 1 oppose this at least until we hear 
Mr. Burnett. 

Mr. BURNETT: I insist upon a question of privilege. 
The facts stated by Dr. McAllister do not prove that I have 
violated in any way the sentence revoking my license. I insist 
that since the representatives of Pittsburgh Presbytery make 
that assertion they bring forward the proof of it. 

Rev. D. S. FARIS: I am not going to hear a man in de- 
fence of his appeal who has not been acting in subordination 
o the matter about which he has appealed. 

Mr. BURNETT : It is not proved that I have been acting 
insubordinate. 

Mr. R. McAFEE : It seems to me a summary way to decide 
a case without hearing the appellant. 

Mr. BURNETT: May I ask another question: Does this 
apply to both cases? 

The MODERATOR : It applies to both. 

Dr. MCALLISTER : I have not any objection for my own 
part, and I want it understood that I am perfectly willing, 
and I know Presbytery is, that Mr. Burnett bring everything 



538 



STENOGRAPHIC REPORT. 



be can before this Court, if the Court has the patience to hear 
it. If the Court wish to give so much time to hear Mr. Bur- 
nett, it will be perfectly satisfactory to Pittsburgh Pres- 
bytery. 

Dr. JAMES KENNEDY: I think it will be a matter of 
courtesy. 

Mr. W. T. MILLER : I think there ought to be a limit to 
this thing. 

The MODERATOR : There is one motion before us. 

A MEMBER : Our Book of Discipline says that in cases of 
appeal or complaint the court shall proceed so and so. We 
have proceeded part way and stopped. Now this young man 
is before us and asks to be heard. I believe if he wants to be 
heard, according to our own Book we ought to hear him. 

The MODERATOR: The Moderator thinks there is no 
necessity for it. There is no real obligation to hear him; but 
he can be heard before this motion is disposed of, if it is the 
will of the Court. 

Mr. Jos. STEVENSON: I move this motion be indefinitely 
postponed. 

Rev. J. MCCRACKEN : I move to amend the motion, that 
Mr. Burnett be heard. 

Dr. R. J. GEORGE : I think Mr. Burnett should not be 
heard until he purges himself of contempt, 

Mr. BURNETT: I insist I have been guilty of no con- 
tempt, and that is just the point I am making now. If the 
representatives of Pittsburgh Presbytery will show I have 
been guilty of contempt, I am ready to purge myself of that 
contempt. 

Dr. T. P. STEVENSON: I think Mr. Burnett ought to 
embrace the opportunity which is afforded him, or proposed 
to be afforded him, of explaining why it is that the statement 
made by the representatives of Pittsburgh Presbytery, even 
if true, involves no contempt, as I understand that to be his 
claim. The statement has been made that Mr. Burnett has 
been preaching regularly at the same hours at which public 
worship is conducted in the Wilkinsburg R. P. church. Mr. 
Burnett says those statements do not involve contempt. Now 
I think he ought to make his explanation. 

The MODERATOR : Will he be heard before this motion 
is put? 

Rev. D. S. FARIS: I am willing to hear him purge him- 
self. 

The MODERATOR : We will now hear Mr. Burnett on that 
point. 

Mr. BURNETT: I have just a word or two to say in this 
connection. The facts have all been brought out in the ap- 
peals that have been read in this Court concerning the refusal 
°f Presbytery to ordain me as pastor of the Wilkinsburg 
church, and also the action of the same Presbytery in revok- 



WEDNESDAY, JUNE 10. 



539 



ing my license at its regular meeting. I went back to Wil- 
kinsburg. Some of my friends insisted that I should hold 
services in a hall which they had secured. I did not do so. 
I refused to hold services until after the second Sabbath after 
my license had been revoked. The second Sabbath after my 
license had been revoked by the Presbytery, the licentiate 
who was appointed to preach was unable to fill his appoint- 
ment, and a member of the Wilkinsburg congregation went 
to Allegheny City and secured a second year student, a man 
who was unlicensed, to come out to Wilkinsburg and preach 
in the church, — a man who was in precisely the same relation 
to the church that I was. I claim it was an act of injustice 
and wrong so far as the congregation was concerned. Of 
coursef that does not come up in this case except to show the 
motive that prompted me to my action. 

Then I received a request signed by people in Wilkins- 
burgh, citizens of the town who are not and never have been 
Covenanters, asking me to hold services in a hall, as they 
thought I might be the means of gathering in a great many 
people who did not go to the church. The hall has been 
secured. We have been holding services in that hall since 
that time. I might say that the purposes for which the 
services were organized have been conserved. I am not re- 
sponsible for any action of members of that congregation. I 
have done nothing in holding those services that any member 
of the church, any member of this Court who is a lay mem- 
ber, could not have done. And consequently I claim I have 
been guilty of no contempt, especially when that request 
came to me from men who were not in connection with that 
church, and when those meetings were carried on for the 
definite purpose of reaching young men who did not go to 
church anywhere in our town. That is the reason I insist 1 
have been guilty of no contempt of the authority of Pitts- 
burgh Presbytery. 

Rev. T. P. ROBB : Before this young man takes his seat I 
would like to put in one question: I would like to ask him if 
he has been holding preaching services in that hall since the 
lime his license was revoked? Has he been preaching there? 

Mr. BURNETT: I have been holding services. 

The MODERATOR : His question is, have you been preach- 
ing in that hall? 

Mr. BURNETT: I have been holding services just as any 
other member of the church who was qualified. 

The MODERATOR: Have you been preaching, is the ques- 
tion? 

Mr. BURNETT : That depends upon what you understand 
by preaching. 

The MODERATOR : Everybody knows what is meant by 
preaching. 

Dr. T. P. STEVENSON : Mr. Burnett states that he has been 



540 



STEMOGRAPHIC REPORT. 



doing simply what our unlicensed students of theology have 
been doing bv the permission of this Synod. Am I right? 

The MODERATOR : Is that the statement? 

Prof. WILLSON : We have no such action of Synod. 

Dr. T. P. STEVENSON : What was the action of Synod, 
let me inquire. 

Prof. WILLSON : Under the direction of their pastor. 

Dr. MCALLISTER: Let me ask if the hall is not rented for 
a year? 

Mr. BURNETT : I have nothing to do with the renting of 
the hall. 

Dr. MCALLISTER : I would also ask if the pledge for the 
payment of the rent is not in the name of four members of the 
Reformed Presbyterian church? 

Mr BURNETT : I have no knowledge of that matter. 

A SPECTATOR : I can answer both those questions. 

The MODERATOR : You are not on the floor. 

Rev. F. M. FOSTER : I would ask if Mr. Burnett did not 
arrange last Sabbath and the Sabbath before for preaching 
by members of this church, thus affirming the fact of services 
there. 

Mr. BURNETT : There is no dispute as to the fact of ser- 
vices being held there. 

Mr. McAFEE : Is it not competent for any member of the 
Reformed Presbyterian church to hold evangelistic services? 

The MODER VTOR : The Moderator is not answering ques- 
tions. He is not on trial. 

Prof. WILLSON : There is a vast difference between a mart 
under suspension and a licentiate. 

Dr. STEVENSON: Did you hold any services before your 
license at all? 

Mr. BURNETT: I don't know as that is pertinent to the 
case. 

Rev. JOHN F. CROZIER : Did you take a text and expound 
that text? 

Mr. BURNETT : Certainly. 

Mr. CROZIER : Did you explain a psalm? 

Mr. BURNETT: I did; yes, sir. 

Rev. J. F. CROZIER : interspersing those services with 
prayer after our order? 
Mr. BURNETT : Certainly. 

Rev. J. F. CROZIER : Did you invoke the benediction? 
Mr. BURNETT: Yes, sir, I did. That is what every 
student does. 

A MEMBER : Is there any necessity of having these meet- 
ings at the same hour as the other meetings? 

Mr. BURNETT: We thought there was, or we would not 
have arranged them at those hours. 

Rev. Mr. McCRACKEN Does Mr. Burnett consider there is 
any license necessary to preach at all? 



WEDNESDAY, JUNE 10. 



541 



Mr. BURNETT : I don't know that that is pertinent to the 
case. 

Kev. Mr. McCRACKEN : By what authority does he preach 
now*? Or does he preach without any authority? 

Mr. BURNETT : I insist I have not been preaching. That 
is the point; that I have simply been conducting eYangelistic 
services as any member of the cburch might do who is quali- 
±o do it. 

The MODERATOR : What is now the will of the Court? 
ReY. D. S. FARIS : I insist on the motion being put as it 
was made. 

ReY. J. R. THOMPSON: Mr. Burnett was one of my boys 
Drought up in my congregation before he entered Geneva Col- 
lege, where he graduated, or before he entered the Theological 
Seminary. He was engaged in connection with the Young 
Men's Christian Association ; he was known as a Christian 
worker. His mind and heart ran in that line. He is so 
constituted that he must be engaged in work somewhere, and 
when his license was revoked, he went back to Wilkinsburg, 
and at the request of people outside of the church, as I under- 
stand, he resolved to meet with them on the Sabbath in a hall 
which they had secured to carry on Christian work, just as he 
did before he entered College, and just as he did in the 
Young Men's Christian Association, and just as any Christian 
man has a right to do. Now he did not act as a licentiate. 
He did not preach in the sense in which a licentiate preaches. 
He went there and engaged in those services ; and I hold that 
as a man and as a Christian he has a right to do that. I hold 
it to be unjust to tie the hands and still the lips of a young 
man who is full of love for perishing souls, who has spent 
years in that line and been remarkably successful wherever 
he has worked. I hold it to be unjust to sit there for a month 
or six weeks doing nothing when sinners were perishing all 
around him. and were inviting him to hold services. 

Mr. R. McAFEE : I just want to make a statement with 
reference to Mr. Burnett. I happened to be on a committee 
in the New York Presbytery for the purpose of carrying on 
Mission work within the bounds of Presbytery; and while 
Mr. Burnett was a student, not of theology, but in the Col- 
lege, and a literary student, we employed him for that very 
purpose, and he did the very work he is doing now, — he 
preached at evangelistic meetings, if you call it preaching; 
he exhorted the people and held evangelistic services before 
he entered the Seminary. Now, as I understand it, he still 
retains his membership in the church, and still has rights as 
any member of the church who has the ability to preach the 
Gospel or speak to perishing souls of the Gospel of Jesus 
Christ, and that is what I understand he has been doing. 
And I do not think this Synod ought to censure him. 

Dr. R. J. GEORGE: The significance of the remark, that 



542 



STENOGRAPHIC REPORT. 



has just been made, is simply this : That as our brother did 
not wait for licensure until he began to preach, his licensure 
had no particular effect, because he was doing before all 
that licensure authorized him to do afterward, and because 
his licensure had no significance, the revoking of it had no 
significance. He began before his license, he continued while 
he was licensed, and he went on after it was revoked, just in 
the same line of procedure. What I wish to submit is this : 
You have heard the statements of Mr. Burnett that this hall 
has been hired, and that it is in the vicinity of our church at 
Wilkinsburg; that the services are held at the same hour at 
which our services are held ; that he conducts them after the 
form of our service, with the explanation of a psalm, with- 
the expounding of a portion of Scripture, with devotional 
exercises, and the invocation of the benediction. It is said 
he does not do this as a licentiate but as a layman. I submit 
that laymen in our church without the authority of licensure,, 
do not do things in this way. And it would simply stultify 
ourselves to say that this line of procedure is in accordance 
with the regulations of this church. I am willing that the 
Court shall say, having heard this statement, whether they 
are willing to let him go on. If they see fit to do that, I insist 
it shall be understood that we are not at all blinded by any 
statement that has been made that this is in harmony with 
the law of our church. And in view of the effect upon our 
congregations of conducting these services at the same hour r 
and so disturbing the people, it is certainly a peculiar state- 
ment to say that there is no contempt of the authority of the 
court that revoked the license and refused to ordain Mr. Bur- 
nett. 

Mr. BURNETT: A question of privilege, please; I would 
like if these two appeals were considered separately under 
this motion, as they are separate appeals. 

The MODERATOR : The motion is that these appeals be- 
dismissed. The Court has the right to divide the motion. 

Mr. BURNETT : I insist that the first appeal is a separate 
appeal. 

The MODERATOR: Certainly; but the Court has power 
to decide whether it will divide them in the vote or not. 

(The motion as made was carried by a viva voce vote.) 

Mr. BURNETT : As a question of privilege, I simply wish 
to request the clerk to furnish me a copy of the Minutes so 
far as they relate to my case, as I desire to go to a court 
where I can get justice. 

Rev. A. W. McCLURKIN : I ask, if it be in order, that 
the clerk furnish me a copy of the record so far as it relates- 
to my case. 

Rev. J. S. T. MILLIGAN : I move that in all these cases 
the clerk furnish those who have requested it a transcript of 
the record in their case. 



WEDNESDAY. JUNE 10. 



543 



The MODEEATOE : This case has gone back to the Pres- 
bytery, and it is their dutv to attend to that and not ours. 

*Eev. A. TT. McCLTXRKIN : It has been decided, and I ask 
for what Synod did. 

(On motion the Court adjourned.) 



QUAE TEE - CEXTENXIAL VOLUME 



OF THE 



PITTSBURGH COVENANTER CONGREGATION. 



This volume contains the sermons, addresses, historical 
papers, etc.. which were read or preached during the nine 
days of the commemoration of the settlement of the first pastor, 
Dr. A. M. Milligan, May 14, 1866. It also contains portraits 
of the former and the present pastor, and a picture of the 
church building. 

Included in this volume are the following sermons, ad- 
dresses, and historical and other papers : 

An Introduction, giving a comprehensive summary of the 
congregation's work, the relations of pastor and people in this 
work, and the true estimate of a congregation's influence for 
good. 

Sermon by the pastor, Dr. McAllister — Subject, " The Cove- 
nanter Church of the United States and Her Covenant." 

Sermon by the pastor — Subject " The Covenanter Church of 
Pittsburgh."' 

••The Early History, Organization, and Financial Struggle 
of the Eeformed Presbyterian Church of Pittsburgh," by El- 
der D. Chesnut. 

t4 Membership and Sabbath School Work for Twenty-five 
Years,** by Elder S. McNaugher and the pastor. " History of 
the Building of the Church,*' by Dr. W. E. Hamilton. - The 
Financial Record of Twenty-five years." by T. H. Boyd and 
J. S. Arthur. "Mission Work Outside the City.** Mrs. S. Mc 
Xaugher, Mrs. J. S. Arthur and Mrs. J.E. McKee. Mission 
Work in the City," Miss Ella Martin and Miss S. Woodside. 

Sermon by Rev. D. C. Martin, subject, -The Palaces and 
Towers of Zion." 

Communion Sabbath — Action Sermon, " The Relations of 
Covenanting and Communion.*' by the pastor. 

Memorial Sermon by Dr. E.J. George, "The Heavenly 
Vision." 

Addresses by Eev. Prof. D. B. Willson, D. D.: Eev. Dr. W. 
J. Eobinson, ' ; The Church andEeforms;" and Eev. Dr. J. 
W. Sproull. 

The Financial Methods of the Pittsburgh Congregation have 
arrested special attention. Hints and suggestions may be 
found here for other congregations to consider. 

This volume will have a special interest as a good illustration 
of a genuine Covenanter Communion Season, which its pre- 
paratory days of preaching and evening prayer meetings. 
jgSTOniy a limited number of copies of this volume printed, 
and no plates made. Price $1.00, exclusive of postage or ex- 
pressage. Postage 12 cents. 

Send all orders with the money to Covenanter Publish- 
ing Co., 13 Union Av"e. Allegheny. Pa. 




'OCT 









































<0 



9 



■i 




